Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [LORDS].

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think

fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have alrady been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman objecting to the Greater Manchester Bill?

Mr. Bennett: My objection, Madam Speaker, was to the British Waterways Bill, which I thought was the first question that you put.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman actually objected to the first motion. The Question that I put was,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and the Bill now be read the third time.
That is the motion which the hon. Gentleman objected to. The objection must stand for the moment, although I take it that he is also objecting to the Waterways Bill.

Sir Michael Neubert: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) did not understand the position when he objected to the first motion. Could you not exercise your discretion and allow it to pass on this occasion?

Madam Speaker: Of course I can. I think that is a very common-sense approach. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the support of the House.

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] Considered.

Considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means].

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Capital Expenditure, Manchester

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will approve in full Manchester's bid for capital expenditure on schools for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Manchester's capital bid will be decided on its merits. We shall announce our decision on all the local education authority bids in December.

Mr. Bradley: I hope the Minister has read the brilliant documentation of disrepair in Manchester schools in my constituency. I know that he is having a meeting with a delegation from Manchester city council next month, and I hope that he will work positively with its members to ensure that resources are made available for remodelling, repair and rebuilding of Manchester's schools, particularly Parrswood high school and St. Paul's school in my constituency. Will he ensure that all Manchester's children receive a quality education in quality schools and buildings?

Mr. Forth: I am looking most carefully at Manchester's bid, as I look at all education authority bids. Manchester has done remarkably well over the last few years, and I do not wish to embarrass other local education authorities who might be envious of just how well it has done. I remain conscious of the needs of Manchester and other local education authorities. We will not only listen carefully to what the delegation has to say, but do our best to meet all reasonable requests from Manchester and other places.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that Manchester council would have more money to spend on its schools if it ran its affairs generally in a more efficient fashion? Have not the local government ombudsman and the Audit Commisssion identified numerous areas where money is wasted? For instance, 60 lecturers have been told to stay at home while the council spends £1 million on their salaries.

Mr. Forth: I am not sure that I can take those precise factors into account when considering Manchester's capital bid; however, I expect Manchester and all the other local education authorities to take full advantage of the Chancellor's generosity in allowing them to use all capital receipts this year, without let or hindrance. I hope that they will do that, and direct a good deal of the money towards educational needs.

Mr. Eastham: Will the Minister give some consideration to the serious position of schools in Manchester? In north Manchester—which constitutes about one fifth of my constituency, Blackley—each of 18 schools needs expenditure of more than £100,000. Is the Minister prepared to spend the money, or else find himself having to replace those schools with new buildings in four or five years' time?

Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is directing such questions to Manchester local education authority —in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has said, in the light of what I have said about capital receipts and in the light of the fact that the LEAs have enormous discretion in prioritising their own work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is quizzing the LEA; it is to the LEA that he should look.

Single European Market

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what aspects of the curriculum prepare school children for the opportunities of the single European market.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Timothy Boswell): The national curriculum provides for all pupils a broad and balanced education which will equip them with the skills, knowledge and understanding appropriate for adult life and for the world of work within the European Community. The Department has issued informal guidance on how this European dimension can be addressed through individual subjects, particularly modern foreign languages, geography and history.

Mr. Taylor: While education must remain very much the responsibility of national Governments, does my hon. Friend agree that preparing young people for the opportunities and challenges presented by the single market—and also for the needs of companies that now operate on a pan-European scale—requires schools to take more and more children post-16, and to broaden their education by giving it a European dimension? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the United Kingdom Centre for European Education in this regard?

Mr. Boswell: I agree very much with my hon. Friend on two counts. First, I approve of his emphasis on the fact that the European dimension must respect the national education systems that must deliver education; secondly, I endorse his praise for the United Kingdom Centre for European Education, where he and I shared a platform this morning. I was able to introduce to the conference, and the consultative process, the Commission's Green Paper, which is designed to set up proper measures for co-operation—but not harmonisation—in European education policies.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that the teaching of children will be made immensely more difficult in places such as Bradford if section 11 funding, and other funding aimed at tackling deprivation and disadvantage, is reduced? Will he take this opportunity to confirm or deny recent reports that Bradford's section 11 funding is to be substantially reduced?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman could take a few lessons in relevance before asking such questions. I have noted what he said, as have my colleagues; I hope, however, that he will remember that there is only one broad pot for education spending, and that any money that is spent for one purpose may not be available for another.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The national curriculum's requirement that every child learn a foreign language undoubtedly represents a major step forward, but is there


not a long way to go before our children are as well prepared for business in the single market as children in some other Community countries such as Germany—not to mention Holland and Sweden? Do we not need to invest more in training language teachers, and expanding the range of opportunities for children to learn foreign languages?

Mr. Boswell: Our education system undoubtedly has some strengths—for example, in information technology —but it also has a number of weaknesses. I think that most of us feel that in respect of our performance in modern foreign languages. A strong emphasis has been placed on the issue, and we have discussed it with the Commissioner in the context of his proposed changes to the Lingua programme.

Student Awards

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to provide special funding next year for discretionary student awards.

Mr. Boswell: That is a matter for local education authorities. They are already free to devote to discretionary awards whatever portion of their total resources they consider appropriate to local needs and circumstances.

Mr. Hain: Surely the Minister is insulting the House with that reply. He knows that every local education authority that wishes to fund students who need discretionary grants is prevented from doing so by the cuts in budgets which have been imposed by central Government. Is he aware that he is consigning many thousands of students, from those of medicine to those of music, who depend or would depend on a discretionary student grant, to an impossible position in which they cannot continue their further and higher education? Why does not he grasp that nettle? Why has he not published the study of the subject by the Gulbenkian and Sir John Cass foundations, which was promised by the Prime Minister in the summer?

Mr. Boswell: We increased education spending by about 2·6 per cent. last year, and that is available for local authorities to spend on what they regard as their priorities. If they choose to take funds away and spend them in some other sector, that is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we took away that discretion from them.
As for the point that the hon. Gentleman made about discretionary awards, we have not published the Gulbenkian and Sir John Cass foundations' study because it is not ours to publish. The document is being prepared by the National Foundation for Educational Research. I shall read it—as will the hon. Gentleman, I am sure—with great interest when the detailed findings are available. I have already told the House, from the early part of that study before the detailed work was done, that there was evidence of a continuation of spending and the number of awards made, both of which are slightly higher than they were three years ago.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend must be aware that in my constituency there are premises of Leicester university and of De Montfort university. Is he aware that students at those universities find it difficult to manage on their grants because the socialist council in the city of Leicester is

imposing hideous regulations on private landlords, pricing private residential accommodation out of the reach of students? Will he, with the co-operation of the Department of the Environment, ensure that unnecessary regulations affecting student housing are not implemented?

Mr. Boswell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I am very much in the business, from this Dispatch Box, of promoting academic deregulation wherever possible and preventing unnecessary and expensive regulations either in the capital programmes of universities and colleges or, indeed, in student accommodation. Although it is not a direct responsibility of the Department, and it has relevance to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, I have noted what my hon. Friend said and I will take forward his specific suggestion.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Whether the Minister likes it or not, the discretionary grants provision is now in a state of crisis. He promised the results of the Gulbenkian study before the summer and said that they were imminent, but we still await the results of that report. Even if he does not know, we know already that four local education authorities have cut discretionary grants altogether, another 10 have cut grants down to fees only and the majority have cut back on provision of discretionary grants. Is the Minister aware, as he ought to be, that the people who depend on discretionary grants are those who would not get into education without the grants? Will the tell the House here and now what steps he is taking to ensure that next year those grants will be available for the people who need them?

Mr. Boswell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is such a slow learner. I have already explained to the House why I cannot publish the survey, which is not in my hands to publish. We are not sitting on it.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of assertions in a paper that he submitted to the Department in July, including, at that time, the assertion that three local authorities had decided to make no discretionary awards. I have not, as far as I am aware, been given the names of those authorities. He has now increased the number to four. As I told him at the time, if he is prepared to name them, my Department will investigate because not to make any payments is an improper use of the discretionary procedure.

Mr. Batiste: Is not the sad reality that too many Labour local authorities, such as mine in Leeds, simply do not attach sufficient importance to education to make a fair share of resources available for discretionary grants?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is exactly on the point. It is no good giving discretion to local authorities if they then turn round and dislike the discretion that they have been given because they have put it into directions which are their own priorities and not the priorities of students.
I noted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). Of course, in certain areas less is paid. We shall know more when the detailed survey is completed. I am as anxious as he is that it should be completed. It is no excuse for a local authority to say that it has not been given the money—it has.

School Leavers

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to improve the transition of school leavers from school to work.

Mr. Boswell: All the Government's policies for school education, and particularly the national curriculum, are designed to prepare pupils for adult and working life.
In addition to raising the standards of skills and knowledge achieved by all pupils, the Government are ensuring that they will benefit from a planned programme of careers education and guidance. This should assist them in taking advantage of the three clear qualifications pathways that we are developing.

Mr. Mandelson: In the light of two reports on education standards—one published last week and the other, from the National Commission on Education, which will appear shortly—does the Minister accept that thousands of school leavers, mostly from deprived backgrounds and communities, are being badly let down by the school system? Is it not time for the Government to undertake an urgent examination of education provision for those above and below the school leaving age, so that the full range, quality and the co-ordination of education and training opportunities are significantly improved?

Mr. Boswell: I will not comment on documents that I have not seen and which have not been published. I felt that the most striking aspects of the recent report by the Office for Standards in Education was the way in which it emphasised teachers' low expectations of their pupils in difficult areas and areas of social stress. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—if this is the point that he was making —that the problem needs addressing. Ofsted has produced an excellent report. Through our proposals for a large expansion in further education and, at school level, through the national curriculum, we are trying to provide a basis for all pupils, whatever their aptitudes and abilities and, above all, whatever their social backgrounds, to have the right to a decent education and to proper motivation from their teachers, as well as reasonable expectations of the very considerable progress that they can make.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Foyer project, which is one of eight pilot projects supported by his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment? It is intended to help young people in the transition between school and work, especially those who have difficulty in finding housing in Norwich and other parts of the country and also those young people who may have some difficulty at home. Will he pay full tribute to the excellent work that is being done in Norwich and elsewhere on that splendid project?

Mr. Boswell: I most readily join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that project. I must emphasise the importance of studying the period around year 11 and subsequent years at school, when pupils make extremely critical career choices. They are entitled to as much guidance and support as we can possibly produce for them.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister reflect on the simple truth that seems to be obvious to everyone except the Government, which is that the greatest problem that has consistently faced school leavers is that their prospects of finding employment are worse than under any other

Government since the war? Will he reflect on the tremendous damage that is done within schools when pupils have the certain knowledge that, however hard they try and however many exams they pass, their prospects of finding full-time employment when they leave are minimal as long as this Government is in office? Does he not feel thoroughly ashamed to be a member of a Government who are responsible for that?

Mr. Boswell: I am staggered that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that unemployment has already decreased by 84,000 this year. I hope that he will not put it about to our school leavers that it is not worth staying on to get skills and qualifications, because growing numbers of them are staying on and were already doing so before the recession—71 per cent. are now staying on full time. That is a good investment in their future and I saw a specialist class at a further education college the other day which had a turnout into employment of more than 90 per cent. because of the high level of skills achieved.

Mr. Forman: While I welcome the thrust of the Government's policy in that area, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest needs is for more vocational courses to be taken in schools at an earlier stage? In that context, will my hon. Friend give a further push to the excellent general national vocational qualifications, which provide a good path for that purpose?

Mr. Boswell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) who, if not the father, was the godfather of general national vocational qualifications. They form a splendid path of new qualifications and are being taken up by upwards of 500 schools and 500 colleges this autumn. We have most ambitious targets for their uptake—we want a quarter of all children who fall within the appropriate age group to take them up within a short time. For the first time, the Government have pioneered proper and appropriate qualifications, blending education and vocation, and providing parity of esteem with the academic route with which we are familiar.

Special Needs

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he last reviewed the statementing process for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Forth: The Education Act 1993 and the draft code of practice issued last week will significantly improve the arrangements for the education of all children with special needs—those with and those without statements. As a result, statements will be made more quickly and written more clearly—to the benefit of children and their parents. We also issued draft regulations which would, for the first time, bind local education authorities to time limits when making assessments and statements.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that a 13-year-old constituent of mine was, to use the odious phrase, "statemented" and, to the anguish of her parents, excluded from mainstream school? There is no other accommodation for her anywhere in Leicester so she receives her education at home for the statutory minimum of just five hours a week—only when her tutor is well, which she is not at present. Is it not disgraceful that the children who


most need education receive the least education because local education authorities such as Leicestershire simply do not have the money to extend the hours? Will the Minister be good enough to look at that aspect of the statementing problem to see whether he can find a way to help local education authorities to provide education at home for those children who, through no fault of their own, cannot receive education at ordinary schools?

Mr. Forth: Obviously, provided all the existing appeals mechanisms have been properly exhausted, I shall want to look at the case raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Janner: They have.

Mr. Forth: If that is so, we shall want to look at the case. I believe that the Education Act 1993, which places new duties on authorities, the code of practice, which brings new uniformity and clarity to the process of making statements for children, the time limits and the SEN tribunal, all add up to a better deal for the children in our schools who have special educational needs. It is no excuse for any local education authority to hide behind the resources whinge if it is not fulfilling its duties towards children with special educational needs. If that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman's local education authority is doing, it is a disgrace.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that many parents will welcome the much strengthened provisions in the new Education Act for those with special educational needs, particularly the time limits on the statementing process? Does he also agree that it is up to the schools to ensure that they identify those children with special needs and ensure that their needs are properly meet?

Mr. Forth: Indeed. My hon. Friend played his part in bringing the Education Act to fruition and on to the statute book, for which I am grateful. He pinpointed the fact that we are rightly going to lay the onus very much on schools, which must have a special educational needs policy. The code of practice rightly lays on schools the principal responsibility for constantly assessing pupils' needs, identifying those needs and meeting them. That will be a considerable step towards providing properly for all children and their needs.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Minister and, having listened to his opening reply, may I say that I agreed with every word of it. The draft code of practice is a most commendable document—the only thing wrong with it is the colour of its cover, but we can stand that. For all the good ideas drafted in the code of practice, unless there are sufficient resources, all the tine words it contains will count for nothing—that is not a resources whinge by a local authority.
Will the Minister do two things? First, will he undertake a survey on what has happened to special educational needs provision over the past four years? I think that he will find that it has not improved in many spheres. Secondly, when local authorities come forward, will he commit himself to providing the resources to implement the fine instructions given in the code of practice; otherwise it will be a scandal?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but I must say that the answer to both his questions is no. A survey of the kind that he suggests would be useless because it would be looking to the past,

when the future is about the Education Act, the code of practice and all that is in them, together with the tribunal. I believe that, as a result of the Act and the code of practice, there will be a much better, more effective and efficient use of existing resources in directing them properly towards pupils in a structured and clear way. I do not believe, therefore, that we should necessarily assume that the improved provision for special educational needs that the Act and the code of practice will bring necessarily demands a blanket spraying of resources around local education authorities. The resources will be better directed by what is in the code of practice. I look forward very much to seeing an improved quality in the delivery of service.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in Kent, distinguishing between (a) primary and (b) secondary; and how many applications for grant-maintained status are under consideration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): Fifty-four secondary schools and 12 primary schools in Kent are already self-governing and enjoying the freedom that grant-maintained status brings. A further seven secondary schools and seven primary schools are in the process of acquiring GM status.

Mr. Rowe: Does not that remarkable figure clearly demonstrate how popular the policy of grant-maintained schools is? Will my hon. Friend comment on the recent article by the director of education in Kent, who, apparently relying on the convention that officials are immune from political attack, chose to attack in an exaggerated and extraordinary form the policy of the Government?

Mr. Squire: I agree with my hon. Friend's praise for self-governing schools. I also agree that the article by the director of education, which was published in The Times Educational Supplement, was both inaccurate and misleading. That is not only my view; I notice that, the following week, the TES published letters from a significant number of head teachers and others making precisely the same points.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that in Kent and elsewhere, as parents have those ballots, they will draw their lessons from the success of schools on the ground rather than from the articles to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister acknowledge that the disgraceful decision to allow only voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools to apply for moneys under the new technology schools initiative is nothing more than a bribe to persuade yet more schools in Kent and elsewhere to opt out? Will he explain why the advice of the chairman of the City Technology Colleges trust was ignored? What further bribes does he propose to offer to try to boost the flagging grant-maintained school initiative?

Mr. Squire: The simplest answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to say that he is wrong. The policy to which he refers was highlighted by the Prime Minister in


1991, it was in our election manifesto in 1992, it was in my right hon. Friend's White Paper following that and it was in the legislation.

Mr. Dunn: Given that grant-maintained schools in Kent moved out of local education authority control only because parents wished to do so, is the Minister aware that the Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council is now objecting to all grant-maintained school applications, yet did not have the guts to tell the people of Kent of its policy during and before the recent Kent county council elections?

Mr. Squire: I find it sad that the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend took place in Kent and, for all I know, in other counties. In the forthcoming elections, I hope that the parties—whatever their views on self-governing schools—will not hesitate to put their views before the electorate. If, like Opposition Members, they believe that self-governing schools are wrong, they should say so and make that clear to the electorate before they vote.

Nursery Education

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines he recommends for pupil-teacher ratios for nursery education in areas of deprivation.

Mr. Robin Squire: There are no recommendations made on staffing levels specifically for nursery education in areas of deprivation. The long-standing recommended staffing levels for all pupils in nursery education are for a minimum of two staff members for every 26 children in nursery classes and two for 20 children in nursery schools; in both cases, one member of staff should be a qualified teacher and one a qualified nursery assistant.

Mr. Wray: According to the statistics from the Library, 26:1 is the average pupil-teacher ratio in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that thousands of children are missing out on nursery education? Will he take a leaf out of the Plowden report, which recommends that areas of deprivation should have pupil-teacher ratios as low as 10:1? Does not the Government's capping of local authorities mean that they cannot spend the money that they would like to spend on nursery education?

Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as has already been referred to, how money is used by local authorities is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman also knows that within the grant distribution system, significant extra sums go to areas of major deprivation.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree with Ofsted and Professor David Hargreaves, former chief inspector of the Inner London education authority, that standards in nursery schools and the primary sector in deprived areas depend not so much on pupil-teacher ratios as on high expectations from teachers and good leadership from head teachers? Is not it true that those are underpinned by policies of rigorous assessment and league tables, which are understood by the vast majority of parents in Britain but are completely misunderstood by the Opposition?

Mr. Squire: I agree with my hon. Friend's excellent comments. I suspect that one thing that would transform education in some of our inner cities would be the

stretching of all pupils by teachers so that pupils are tested to the very limit of their abilities rather than taught down to.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of the Minister's last answer, will he clarify the Government's position with regard to nursery school league tables? Does the Minister accept that the Ofsted report, praised by the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education earlier this afternoon, points out the critical role of nursery education? Is not it a remarkable condemnation of 14 years of Conservative Government that so many young children are denied the best start in education? If parents, governors, teachers and now Ofsted can see the value of nursery education, why will not Ministers lift one finger to help extend nursery provision and provide the best start for all our children?

Mr. Squire: Far from simply lifting a finger, as the hon. Lady says, the Government have acted and significantly increased the numbers in nursery education since we have been in power. But we do not believe that nursery education is the only answer for pre-school aged children. As the hon. Lady well knows, more than 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in Britain are educated in some form of group activity, a rich and varied form of education and training.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local authorities now have more than 10 per cent. of their pupils being educated in grant-maintained schools.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): In 30 local authorities, 10 per cent. or more of all pupils are already being educated in self-governing schools. In 47 local authorities, more than 10 per cent. of secondary pupils are educated in grant-maintained schools and 15 per cent. of the country's secondary pupils are now educated in grant-maintained schools—nearly 500,000 pupils today.

Mrs. Peacock: What responsibilities will the funding agency have for schools in areas in which more than 10 per cent. of pupils are in grant-maintained schools?

Mr. Patten: The new Funding Agency for Schools will have considerable powers in such areas. Once more than 75 per cent. of pupils in either the primary or secondary sector are being educated in grant-maintained schools, the Funding Agency for Schools will take over the planning of school places in its entirety. Local education authorities can ask to go into the care of the Funding Agency for Schools long before that if they wish. Already at least one borough, Hillingdon, has passed the 75 per cent. point, so from 1 April the Funding Agency for Schools will be dealing with all the schools in Hillingdon, shortly to be joined by Brent and a good number of other local authorities.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What plans does the Secretary of State have to force all schools to adopt grant-maintained status by abolishing local education authorities and when can we expect an announcement about that?

Mr. Patten: None, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal opposition to grant-maintained schools comes from two sources; politically motivated local education authorities and local education authorities which seek to protect their education empires?
Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the appointment of Sir Christopher Benson to the Funding Agency for Schools? Does he agree that Sir Christopher will reach those parts of the educational scene that other educationists will not reach?

Mr. Patten: On the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question, the answers are yes and yes.
As for Sir Christopher Benson, we are extremely fortunate to have the present serving chairman of the Housing Corporation moving to the Funding Agency for Schools. He is a man with an international reputation and that makes the attack on him in The Guardian by the Opposition spokesman on education all the more disgraceful. He has not been attacked by any Labour Front Bencher during his tenure as chairman of the Housing Corporation, yet the hon. Lady has started to attack him before he has even taken up his job.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there were 95 school ballots on grant-maintained status in October last year, while there were just 19 ballots in October this year? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that it is five years to the day since the first school ballots for grant-maintained status took place and that, at the rate at which schools have become grant-maintained, it will take the best part of the century to reach the Government's targets?
Does the Secretary of State have any plans to revise the targets, now that his bribe-and-divide policy is simply running out of steam?

Mr. Patten: We have no targets; we have figures. Already this year some 450 schools have taken part in ballots on grant-maintained status and there will be another 50 ballots before Christmas.
The hon. Lady simply does not understand her brief. I understand that a learned judge has said recently that repetitive strain injury does not exist; repetitive political self-damage occurs every time that the hon. Lady opens her mouth.

Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the petty, vicious and nasty policy of the Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council, which is seeking to cut all capital funding to any school in Essex which thinks about or puts in motion a grant-maintained ballot?

Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the Lib-Lab-Democrat pact which is now in charge in Essex runs Kent very close for the title of the worst education authority among the new Lib-Lab controlled shires.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. It is entirely wrong for any local authority to attempt to use bully-boy—and, to satisfy the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), bully-girl—tactics to stop schools voting in favour of grant-maintained status.

Literacy

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent study he has made of national literacy standards.

Mr. Patten: Standards in the teaching and learning of reading and writing in schools are continually monitored by the Office for Standards in Education, and the national curriculum testing arrangements for English will provide a regular measurement of the attainment of pupils. Adult literacy is monitored on the Government's behalf by the excellent adult literacy and basic skills unit. The raising of literacy standards is a top priority for the Government's policies for education and is reflected by the substantial support which we are providing for the Reading Recovery and the Family Literacy initiatives.

Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister will be aware of the planned reduction from £129 million to £90 million of section 11 funding. Those cuts will affect Coventry, where three quarters of that money is spent on English as a second language. How on earth do those cuts fit in with the Government's stated priorities? Is this a case of two Ministries which are not able to work together? Is it a case of the Government saying one thing and doing another, or is it simply that people from ethnic minorities do not figure highly in the Government's priorities?

Mr. Patten: They figure very highly. I say three things to the hon. Gentleman. First, I share his interest in ensuring that all our children from ethnic minority communities are well educated. Secondly, he should reflect on whether all the money that was previously earmarked for section 11 funds in years past was well spent. Much of it was spent by labour local education authorities such as Avon on paying general teachers' salaries rather than section 11 teachers' salaries. Thirdly, while I agree that some teaching of mother tongue languages or English as a second language may be important for newly landed immigrant children, the first language of all our children should be English. That is what should be taught in our schools.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a Scotsman, may I say that the English language is the greatest and most necessary opportunity that one can give to a child, and the younger the better, if the child is to find employment and be impressive. The civil service has hardly shown us the way in its reports. Idiotic phrases such as "statementing process", as was used in question No. 5, show that the civil service is destroying English. It ought not to.

Mr. Patten: I shall refer the second part of my hon. and learned Friend's question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has ministerial responsibility for the civil service. As for the first part, I regard it as critical that all our children are brought up to speak standard English clearly and with confidence; that helps to level all our children up. Standard English should be spoken clearly and with confidence, whatever accent is used to deliver it. That includes the accent of my hon. and learned Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware that early next month Mrs. Margaret Humphreys will become the first British citizen outside the royal family to be awarded the prestigious Order of Australia medal for her work in rehabilitating victims of the British child migrants scheme? In recognition of that award, will the Prime Minister set up an independent public inquiry into the operation of the scheme until 1967 and the resulting appalling treatment of vast numbers of British children? In view of his professed commitment to open government, will the Prime Minister end the disgraceful Government cover-up of the issue once and for all?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate Mrs. Humphreys on her award. I was not aware that that was the case, but I give her my warmest congratulations. As the hon. Gentleman will know—for I am aware that he has taken a great interest in the matter —the migration schemes to Australia and other countries were run at the time by respected national voluntary bodies. The Government's concern now is to ensure that former child migrants who want to make contact with their families are able to do so. Any concern about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially a matter for the authorities in that country.

Dame Jill Knight: In the light of the broadcast by Gerry Adams last week and the offence that it caused to a great number of people, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the arrangements for the broadcasting on our television screens of self-confessed terrorists and supporters of mass murderers should be revised?

The Prime Minister: Many people felt that the incident to which my hon. Friend refers stretched the present guidelines to the limit and perhaps beyond. That is a matter that perhaps we should examine.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that, while it must be right for both parents to contribute properly to the maintenance of their children, the Child Support Agency is causing widespread anxiety and dismay by imposing a rigid and inflexible financial formula that often ignores the realities of people's lives? Will he institute an immediate review of the operation of the Child Support Act 1991?

The Prime Minister: The whole House recognises the need for both parents to contribute to the bringing up of their children—that is not a point of dispute between myself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that fathers who desert their children face up to their responsibilities. I know of the concerns that have been raised about that matter and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is examining them.

Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in any examination of the system, account is taken of the fact that the formula appears to disregard a property settlement, which provides a home for children, and also the cost of exercising access? Should not those factors, at the least, be taken into account and will they be encompassed in any further considerations of the operation of the Child Support Act?

The Prime Minister: There are a number of matters to be considered, including the maintenance formula to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. My right hon. Friend is aware, as I indicated a moment ago, of the concerns that have been raised and he will examine them.

Mr. John Smith: If further consideration is to be given, will the right hon. Gentleman look into what appears to be another possible fault in the system? Is it right that out of the £530 million that the agency is to raise in its first year, £480 million should go to the Treasury and only £50 million to the benefit of children? While recognising, of course, the legitimate interest of the taxpayer, does not that show a lack of balance in what is supposed to be a Child Support Act?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the main purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that assistance is given by both parents towards their children. That is the purpose of the agency and that will continue to be its purpose in the future.

Mr. Lidington: In view of this morning's press comments about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards possible payments from the European social fund, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to make the Government's position clear?

The Prime Minister: I have seen suggestions in the press in recent weeks that sums due from the social fund would not be paid. Those reports are misguided. It is my expectation that the £300 million figure that has been mentioned in those press reports will be taken up by authorities within the calendar year.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoyle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the imposition of a guillotine on the Railways Bill is an affront to democracy—[Interruption.]—which has caused dis-quiet not only on Opposition Benches, but on his Benches, too, because it will curtail discussion of vital subjects such as pensions, railcards, and British Rail's bid for franchises? Does not he realise that it will be seen by the public as a cheap, gerrymandering attempt to get an unpopular measure, which was introduced by his Government, through the House when it could have been debated fully in the two weeks up to the Queen's Speech?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time and I congratulate him on keeping a straight face while he asked that question. When the arrangements for consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill were announced, no one suggested that the two days proposed were insufficient. The majority of the amendments that have been brought


from another place are uncontroversial, many of them demonstrate the Government's positive responses to the points made in the Lords and all aspects of the proposals have been discussed exhaustively at all stages.
The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that so far there have been more than 186 hours of debate, including 130 hours in this House alone—hardly a negation of democracy.

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brandreth: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal involvement in encouraging the Maryland bank of North America to bring its European headquarters to the city of Chester and with it the prospect of 1,000 new jobs for my constituents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment and employment prospects must now go to the top of the European agenda and that the British approach gets the right results—less regulation means more jobs?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the relationship between regulation and jobs. The greater the extent to which we can reduce both regulation from Brussels and domestic regulation, the greater will be the likelihood of increasing the number of jobs in the United Kingdom. I am delighted at the excellent news from Chester and I congratulate my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Ministry for Industry on their part in obtaining that institution.

Mr. Galloway: Will the Prime Minister find time today to call for the court reports referred to in early-day motion 2534, standing in my name and that of other hon. Members, on the torture of a British citizen, Sulaiman A1-Adsani, by Sheikh Jabar A1-Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal house? That matter is now to go before the courts in Kuwait. The torture, which consisted of the burning of 25 per cent. of the body of that British citizen and of his being held repeatedly under water in a swimming pool that was floating with dead bodies and being pistol-whipped and brutally beaten, is a serious matter. Given that the A1-Sabah family business was reinstated to power at the point of British arms and at much British sacrifice, does the Prime Minister think that it would be a worthwhile subject of discussion between him and the Government of Kuwait?

The Prime Minister: My understanding is that the matter is being dealt with by the courts of Kuwait, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall look at the information available to us.

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

The Prime Minister: refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hawkins: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his desire to get back to basics in education? Does he agree that it is essential to keep A-levels as a beacon of excellence at the top of secondary education, to concentrate on reading and writing in primary schools and to ensure that there is strong discipline in schools?

The Prime Minister: I want to see us get back to basics in education, as in other subjects. We want to hear a good deal more of common sense and traditional values and rather less of the fashionable views that have so often offended parents and damaged education. I know that many teachers are concerned about the problem of discipline in schools and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education wishes to discuss with teachers what action can be taken.

Mr. Stevenson: In view of the collapse of the Government's policy on law and order, which has led to rocketing crime figures and equally record prison populations, does the Prime Minister agree with Mr. Derek Lewis that a return to that Victorian value, the prison ship, would be regrettable?

The Prime Minister: There is an internal contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is right and our policy has collapsed, we would not be catching villains and our prisons would not be crowded. He should listen to what the chairman of the Police Federation said just eight days ago:
There has been a lot of comment about prison in the last few days … One fact is clear. Society must be protected from the small but vociferous minority who put two fingers up to the criminal justice system. They are cautioned or bailed simply to be let out again and to reoffend and reoffend again … These criminals should be behind bars. By locking them up they will be unable to ruin other people's lives.
Those are my views as well.

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I urge my right hon. Friend to be sceptical about the siren voices predictably suggesting to him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a major contribution can be made towards reducing the public sector borrowing requirement by relying on the future growth of our economy? That is the fairy gold school of economics, greatly beloved by Opposition politicians all over the world. Does he agree that it is important that, on Budget day, it should be seen that we are making an immediate, substantial and steady movement towards a reduction of our fiscal deficit?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need to make a steady and consistent move to reduce our fiscal deficit. We have been looking at the range of Government expenditure to find out whether it is necessary; if it is, whether it is being spent effectively; and whether there is waste that we can cut. Those are propositions behind which all my right hon. and hon. Friends can unite, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who would throw taxpayers' money at every problem. There will be a series of ways to reduce the fiscal deficit: withholding public expenditure is one; and growth and other factors will make a contribution.

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Hara: Yesterday in the House, the Government failed to refute a figure in a Department of Transport


working paper of £1·15 billion extra subsidy that would be needed for British Rail after privatisation. That is considerably in excess of the sum that would be raised were VAT imposed on domestic fuel bills at a rate of 8 per cent. next year. Will the Prime Minister apologise to pensioners who will be shivering through next winter when he tells them that they will be contributing to the placing of not one more train on our rail tracks or one more passenger on those trains, but to a semblance of profitability in a sham of privatised railways?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense, as the House will have expected of him. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are looking at assistance to help vulnerable people with their heating costs during the winter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that matters such as special cold weather payments were never raised, provided or thought about by previous Governments.

Hare Coursing (No. 2)

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make hare coursing illegal; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing; and for connected purposes.
My constituency of West Lancashire has much to be proud of, but it is not proud of the fact that it hosts the Waterloo cup, which coursers tell me is the blue riband of hare coursing.
The overwhelming majority of people in West Lancashire feel nothing but revulsion for that cruel sport, and I am glad to say that attempts to end it have attracted all-party support. That was particularly the case when the district council passed a Labour resolution to create a byelaw banning the sport in the district, which attracted support from the Conservatives. The Home Office has blocked that byelaw on grounds which I can describe only as spurious. One of the Labour councillors concerned in that vote, Andrew Johnson., represents the parish that hosts, unwillingly, the Waterloo cup, and he is present in the Gallery today. He has earned widespread support in his village for his opposition to that unpleasant activity.
Alas, many obnoxious blood sports remain in this country, but none is more detested than hare coursing. For those hon. Members who know little of it, it consists of beaters driving hares on to a large course. The hares bolt for the long grass past a dog handler who unleashes two hounds, and the dogs seek to catch and kill the hares. Points are awarded for the dexterity of the hounds in turning the hares but, of course, the fundamental aim is the killing of the hares, which, when caught, are torn to pieces.
On one side of the course are assembled the Range Rover and hamper types, and on the other side on a mound are to be found the men with a crate of lager under each arm. The consumption of the lager leads to ever more ugly demands for more killing. To a large extent, the amount of killing can be controlled by the point at which the handler releases the dogs.
Hare coursing is the last legal spectator blood sport—rather than a spectator sport—in this country. It should follow bear baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting and bull baiting into the history books as a horror that civilised men and women have discarded.
The last Waterloo cup meeting in the spring was attended by me and by my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott). We spent about two hours there, during which time there were no kills. There had been kills before we arrived and there were more after we left. Towards the end of our visit, the lager mound was beginning to get obvious in its demands for more blood.
In fairness, I must tell the House that the organisers of the event treated us with extreme courtesy. Mr. Mark Prescott, the organiser, explained his enthusiasm for the sport with great plausibility, not to say charm. He would, wouldn't he? The basis of his defence, like that of all those who are involved in this so-called sport, is, first, the long, distinguished and interesting history of hare coursing; secondly, the income that it provides for some landowners

and some temporary beaters; thirdly, that it is a celebration of the skills of the hares as well as the dogs; and fourthly, that most hares get away.
Many barbaric practices have long and interesting histories, and they include cruelties inflicted on human beings that some Conservative Members would be all too anxious to restore. To say that an abuse of our responsibilities as human beings has a long history cannot justify its continuation. To quote employment as justification is feeble, and such employment should also include the large numbers of policemen who turn out to keep the peace at an event that naturally gives rise to strong feelings. I spoke to the police on duty at the Waterloo cup event. They felt as much distaste for the sport as everyone else, and expressed the wish that they would no longer have to police the affair.
The policy of the League Against Cruel Sports to demonstrate and protest with restraint has meant that there are few significant clashes at the Waterloo cup. The only arrest that I saw was of a drunken hare coursing enthusiast who launched himself at the protesters and was hauled down by the constables.
To celebrate the skills of a beautiful wild animal by dying to see it pulled to shreds is the height of hypocrisy. The excuse that most hares get away is equivalent to saying that most people are not murdered and that therefore murderers's activities should not be stopped.
Government-sponsored research shows that the hare population is in serious decline. The total for the United Kingdom is estimated at 900,000. Some areas, such as parts of East Anglia, are denuded of hares so that they can be transported to Altcar. The species is not a pest, and is already under stress from agricultural change.
It is important to appreciate the close relationship between legal and illegal hare coursing. At the 1990 Waterloo cup, 15 gangs of illegal coursers were arrested in adjacent fields. The best on offer from the law to check this activity was a £40 fine for trespass. Many hon. Members have good reason to support action against unofficial hare coursing, which is often conducted through threats to farmers, gamekeepers and landowners. The National Farmers Union and the police are on record as seeking to outlaw the activity.
I have press cuttings giving accounts of such activities in Wistaston near Crewe, in Aldborough, Salisbury plain, near Newmarket and near Peterborough. In Upholland in my constituency, a seven-year-old girl saw hares torn apart by lurchers close to her home twice in one day. I do not think that Laura Horrocks will every forget that experience.
I am told that illegal coursing is sometimes videotaped and videos are run in pubs for betting purposes—a macabre race night. How can we expect illegal coursing to be curbed by the law when legal coursing is still sanctioned by the House? I had a brief quote from a blood sport journal, but I have lost it somewhere. It said that, if legal hare coursing is abolished, illegal hare coursing will follow as sure as night follows day—and a good thing too.
Hare coursing cannot be defended as part of a traditional country pursuit, especially as few of its proponents are traditional people. Nor can it be defended on the grounds of freedom. The freedom to be barbaric, to be a killer and to rejoice in the spilling of blood for its own sake is a freedom that we allow at the peril of our civilisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mrs. Janet Anderson, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Jean Corston, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Edward O'Hara and Mr. Roger Stott.

HARE COURSING (No. 2)

Mr. Colin Pickthall accordingly presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just heard ten-minute rule Bill on a subject which used to cause maximum controversy and opposition. You will have noticed that, after my hon. Friend's excellent remarks, there was no opposition whatsoever to the measure. It no longer seems to be a controversial subject. No Conservative Member stood up and opposed it, which would have been the case previously. In view of the fact that there is no opposition to the Bill, is there any way in which we can make parliamentary progress, for all the excellent and valued reasons my hon. Friend put forward?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knows that he must pursue that matter with the Leader of the House and through the usual channels.

Orders of the Day — Railways Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Railways Bill:

LORDS AMENDMENTS

1. The proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the adjourned proceedings.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

STAGES SUBSEQUENT TO FIRST CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS

3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—



(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

SUPPLEMENTAL

4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown—

(a) for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons; or
(b) for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

5. —(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

(5) If the proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The case for the motion can be put simply and briefly. There are four good reasons.
First, the Bill has had ample time for debate—about 185 hours before yesterday's proceedings—when all the issues have been exhaustively discussed. That is a great deal of time for every issue to be tackled, so no one can argue that both Houses have had insufficient time to consider the Bill. Quite the reverse: a huge amount of parliamentary time has been devoted to it.
Secondly, all but two of the Lords amendments are either in response to commitments given to hon. Members on both sides of the House and in another place, or they are technical. Indeed, some 75 per cent. of the amendments are technical and do not introduce any real policy issues, or they are consequential. A very large number simply flow from the commitments that have been made.
It is noteworthy that only a small proportion of the time spent on the Bill in another place was spent on the Government amendments that we are considering today. They were all passed in another place without a Division. They were unopposed by the Opposition in another place, with one exception.
The vast majority—indeed, all but two—of the amendments that we are considering in these two days are in response to commitments or are technical. They took very little time in the House of Lords and were not opposed there.
Thirdly, we are fundamentally concerned with two issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr.

Rathbone) said last night. One concerns pensions—the exception to which I referred—and the other British Rail being allowed to bid for franchises. We had provided the House with generous time—two whole days—to consider those issues and the other technical amendments that took so little time in the other place. It should have been perfectly possible to deal with those issues as fully as was required—as, indeed, is still possible under this motion.
It is interesting to note that the other place took about three and a half hours on the two issues; we still have five hours ahead of us to debate them, and we could have spent a great deal of time on them yesterday. In addition, the House had already debated them fully before the Bill left here to go to the other place. We are talking about two amendments that have been very fully and widely debated in the other place in less time than we are now making available at this stage of our proceedings. It is quite clear that we have already provided generous time.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can the Minister tell us of any other Bill of which a very substantial part of the provisions were introduced by a Minister saying, "Although the wording is not clear, it is obvious that it will be tested in the courts"?

Mr. MacGregor: There are many cases where Acts of Parliament involve interpretation by the courts. It happens frequently. I note that the hon. Lady has not challenged any of the three points that I have made so far, yet those are important points in the context of the debate.
My fourth point is that the fact that we have provided plenty of time was acknowledged when no hon. Member questioned the time allocation announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during the business statement last week. That is a crucial point, because it is quite clear that the House understood all the points that I have just made and decided that the time provided for our debate this week was sufficient to deal with all the issues.

Dr. John Marek: I want to make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the Bill has been substantially rewritten. His argument is that, although it has been modified, the principle is not different. That may be so, but the House examines Bills line by line and goes into the detail. Therefore, the argument that the Bill is not substantially different in principle, apart from two issues that have been well debated in the other place, does not carry much water.
Secondly, the other place has sent back those two issues to the House of Commons and is telling us to think again, so they should be fully debated. I am afraid that I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. MacGregor: We have provided plenty of time for those two issues to be debated—indeed, more time than we provided when we considered them on Report on 25 May. We did not have a guillotine on 25 May, but the House decided that two and a half hours of debate was sufficient time, and then took a vote. The hon. Gentleman's point fails on that fact alone. If his view is really as he stated, I am surprised that he did not communicate it to his right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday or raise the matter in the House. The truth is that, last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that two full days had been allocated to debate these issues, and the House thought that that was ample.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that when two days are allocated to debate a Bill that has been to the other place and where new material is involved—and although the measure is controversial and the job of the Opposition is to oppose and to use all the techniques available to do so—it is wrong of the Opposition to assume that the debate will continue beyond 10 o'clock so that the Opposition can harry the Government? Surely that is the role of the Opposition.
The Government know that 80 per cent. of the British public do not want the Bill—[Interruption.] That is true. Our assumption was that two days meant many more hours of debate than being obliged to finish at 10 o'clock on two successive days. I was under the impression that we would spend all night opposing the Bill line by line, clause by clause, to try to prevent it being passed—in line with the wishes of millions of people.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. He said that the Opposition would use every technique available to make sure that the Bill never reached the statute book. That is not the stage that we are at—

Mr. Skinner: It is the Opposition's job to oppose.

Mr. MacGregor: Exactly, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that the Opposition can use every technique without being challenged, he must understand that the Government have the legitimate role of ensuring that amendments are properly considered and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has blown the gaff. He has told us exactly what the Opposition are about.
Until yesterday, we had every reason to believe that we could deal with all the issues in an orderly and reasonable manner. We saw what happened, and the hon. Gentleman explained the thinking behind it. There was an attempt to use the techniques of the House to prevent the Bill from going through. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends now understand exactly what was happening.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: As I am not too naive in these matters, I will spell it out to the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I will allow him to make another point first.

Mr. Skinner: Every text book on parliamentary government and the role of the Opposition indicates that the only power held by the Opposition to stop a ruthless and arrogant Government from enacting measures that the majority of the population do not want is to use the availability of parliamentary time. The Secretary of State is saying that, for the past 14 years, the Government have been so contemptuous of the people and of arguments that, every time that there is opposition, they introduce a guillotine to have their way and to get their legislation through. That says more about this Government than about Oppositions generally in the past.

Mr. MacGregor: I recall, when I was fairly new to the House, having to suffer five guillotines in one day from the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government. The amount of time allowed must be reasonable; it cannot be unlimited. We have already spent more than 185 hours examining the Bill in great detail.
Yesterday, we saw a classic filibuster. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for even a short time could spot what the Opposition were up to a mile away. We had nearly five hours—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State says that the House was subjected to a filibuster by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Did you, Madam Speaker, have to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member speaking because he or she was filibustering? You should put him in his place.

Madam Speaker: Order. That matter is for debate and argument, not for the Chair. I know well what took place yesterday. Any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to do so can check the time taken by any speaker.

Mr. MacGregor: What we are doing now is also in order. I will take the House through it. Yesterday, nearly five hours were spent debating two amendments—

Mr. John Heppell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not give way for the moment. Nearly five hours were spent debating two groups of amendments.

Mr. Heppell: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: This is totally typical of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heppell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The fact is that the House dealt with 128 amendments yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that no right hon. or hon. Member misleads the House. That is not a point of order for the Chair but a matter of argument. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, because he has not been allowed to intervene—but if he will be a little patient, perhaps the Secretary of State will allow him to do so later.

Mr. MacGregor: We want to get on to the points of substance, but it is obvious what the Opposition are up to. They are not allowing me to get on with the argument and are clearly keen to filibuster this debate as well.
I acknowledge that we debated two groups of amendments yesterday. It is typical of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) that he picks up on points of trivia and delivers great tirades on them, but he never addresses the major issues.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will know of my interest in and concern about the more controversial Lords amendments. Does he agree that it would not have made sense to debate, for example, the so-called Peyton amendment on BR bids at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and that it was far better to debate those matters in prime time, which we would have hoped the Opposition would allow? Is not the real reason the fact that the Opposition were denied the possibility of a Conservative rebellion by the skill of the Secretary of State and of some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wanted an opportunity to prove his virility to the left of the Labour party, having possibly sacrificed it at the Labour party conference?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.

Mr. John Prescott: Look at what the pensioners are going to lose.

Mr. MacGregor: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, "Look at what the pensioners are going to lose." He repeats that allegation around the country, but it is not true, as I shall make clear in a moment. It is time that he stopped repeating that accusation, because it is not true.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The Secretary of State pays lip service to the desire to get on with the debate, but we are anxious to get on to its substance and, above all, to the issue of pensioners. Instead of taking part in a cheapskate exercise, let the Secretary of State address himself to the views of the chairman of the British Rail pension fund. Before the summer recess, he said that he was satisfied with assurances that he had been given, but he is now calling on the Government in specific terms to stop reneging on their assurances. He has accused them of reneging on assurances given in another place and coming back to the House with amendments to reverse the Lords amendments.
Let the Secretary of State address himself to those views and to the genuine concerns of hundreds of thousands of British Rail pensioners rather than getting involved in this game of farce and semantics. The Government are interested only in curtailing debate, because they know that the more debate there is, the more they lose the argument.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is not right. I shall return to pensions, which I regard as a serious issue. I wish that we could have spent time on it yesteday, but I shall say something about it in a moment. I need to make the argument for the motion. Instead of interrupting all the time and accusing me of not getting on with the debate, the hon. Gentleman might allow me to do so.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who said—

Mr. Wilson: The idiot.

Mr. MacGregor: That type of comment gets us nowhere, and it is typical of the hon. Gentleman.
I remember the debates of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale: (Mr. Jopling). It was responding to public concern about the way in which we sometimes debate matters at 3 am. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has provided ample time to debate the two key issues at appropriate times during the parliamentary day.
I noticed that the Opposition got very shirty and wanted to interrupt to stop me making my argument on how the filibustering occurred. Nearly five hours were spent on the two groups of amendments—much longer than the Lords took on those two issues. The delays occurred because we were treated to a series of Second Reading speeches and constant repetition of arguments that had been made ad nauseam in earlier debates.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I detect in the Secretary of State's remarks clear criticism of the Chair's handling of amendments yesterday. I am sure that, had any hon. Member contravened the rules of order, the occupant of the Chair would have called the Member to order. Should it not be made clear to the

Secretary of State that the constant use of the word "filibuster" is not only inaccurate but unbecoming in a senior Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I did not notice any criticism of the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Lady is right and that the occupant of the Chair would have acted in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House and carried out his or her duty.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the Standing Orders of the House prevent tedious repetition? The Secretary of State has just accused the Opposition of numerous repetitions, but that cannot be true because it would be in breach of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right, but it is for the Chair to decide what is tedious repetition, and the Chair has not yet so decided.

Mr. MacGregor: We can see how sensitive the Opposition are to the point that I am making. I am not directing any accusations at the Chair; I am saying that the Opposition spokesman had his team lined up—the tactics were all too obvious—to use every argument they could think of to delay debate on the amendments. That is why so many points made in earlier debates were repeated yesterday.
Let us listen to some of the arguments to which we were treated—

Mr. Matthew Banks: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: No, I shall not give way; I must get on.
Despite the fact that everyone was anxious to move on to the key debates and that the House of Lords had spent very little time on the two groups of amendments that we debated yesterday, we were treated to speeches about the sale of drinks at Birmingham New Street station, the opening hours of toilets at Birmingham New Street station, and all stations to Dundee, Broughty Ferry, Monifieth, Carnoustie and Arbroath. I am not saying that such issues, as well as the Eastleigh works, are not important, but they were not relevant to the amendments being considered yesterday. We heard about the nicknames of pre-grouping railway counties, the sale of knickers on stations and various other issues which were included to prolong the debate. That was not an orderly way in which to conduct the debate.
The game was given away when we completed the vote on the second group of amendments at about 9.30 pm. We were deciding how to handle the obvious filibuster, but the game was given away when the Opposition spent hardly any time on the next group of amendments. We all understood what was happening. The Opposition dug a hole for themselves and they were rumbled. Last night we saw blatantly obvious spoiling tactics.
When he made the business statement, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out that, at yesterday's rate of progress, we should have needed a further four weeks to complete consideration of the amendments. That is the reason we had to ensure an orderly debate. If we had not, we would have ended up with a further four weeks of debate—or, as the hon. Member for Bolsover rightly said, a debate long enough to ensure that the Bill did not reach the statute book.
Last night, the Opposition employed deliberate spoiling tactics and displayed spurious, wholly synthetic rage. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear during Prime Minister's Question Time. I watched him doing so on television, and he was absolutely right.

Mr. Peter Snape: I am a former railwayman; indeed, I suspect that I am the only hon. Member who hopes to live long enough to draw a railway pension. However, will the Secretary of State accept that many of my colleagues also feel strongly about these matters—so much so that we were considerably annoyed yesterday by the indifference of Conservative Back Benchers, the vast majority of whom, in spite of their support for the Government today, were not in the Chamber for any part of yesterday's debate? Will he accept that those of us who feel strongly about the future of the railway industry have a right to raise the issues that he mentioned so scornfully and that we shall continue to do so today, as long as the Chair rules that we are in order?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friends believed that the two groups of amendments were right, and they did not want to hold up the discussion. That was a perfectly sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what confirms more than anything else the synthetic nature of the Opposition's outrage is the fact that, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)—I see that he is in his place—none of the Opposition Members who both yesterday and today have expressed mock outrage about the guillotine were present in the Chamber for the debates on any of the amendments?

Mr. George Stevenson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, because what has just been said is not correct. I was in the Chamber throughout the debates but I did not contribute to them, and that is what is misleading the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, if the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) is wrong, he will want to withdraw what he has said. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order. It is time that the House settled down to a serious debate.

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that I have made the case. Indeed, the case for ensuring that there is an orderly debate on the issues of most concern to people outside the House is being made for me by the minute.
As a result of all that I have explained, and especially as a result of what we observed yesterday, the Government believe that a timetable motion is necessary to ensure orderly debate for the remainder of our time on the Bill. I am sure that we can achieve that.
I shall now deal with the two key issues. The first is the question of British Rail bidding for the franchises, and the hon. Member for Wrexham told us last night—his words are recorded at column 123 of the Official Report—that the Opposition were prepared to accept formally the amendments that we were debating at 10 o'clock. That means that we can go straight into the debate on the group including amendment No. 31, which is about British Rail bidding.
I can therefore give my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) the assurance that he sought last night, that there will be ample time to debate that issue. Indeed, there will be more than ample time. On Report on 25 May, a two-and-a-half hour debate on that issue, when the Opposition amendment was defeated, was considered long enough. The House of Lords, too, took two and a half hours on the issue. So we have plenty of time today.
I know that Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends wish to discuss pensions—briefly, in the case of my hon. Friends, because more than 30 hours have already been devoted to the subject, and we have now come down to a fairly narrow issue. The background to the debate is the fact that we have always made clear our belief that it is important that the position of existing pensioners—that is what we are to discuss today—should be fully taken into account and dealt with satisfactorily.
I have said that throughout our proceedings. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have engaged in lengthy discussions with pensioners and pension fund trustees, because I fully understand, accept and sympathise with the pensioners' views, and I was determined to ensure' that they had a good deal. They can now be assured that they have a very good deal indeed.
It is outrageous that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has misrepresented the position of pensioners and of the pension fund so outrageously. He knows that there is no ground whatever for saying that the Treasury is out to purloin the existing pension funds. For him to suggest that is not only outrageous but frightening an awful lot of pensioners unnecessarily. Let me spell the position out.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No, I want to spell the position out.
For existing and deferred pensioners, we are setting up a closed scheme with its own fund within the joint industry scheme. The assets going from the existing British Rail scheme to that fund will be actuarially determined. The fund will, as now, be under the control of the trustees, who will have the same fiduciary duties to members as they have now.
We have added the protection of a guarantee, fully underwritten by the Government, that the fund will remain solvent. That means that pensions paid are certain to keep pace with inflation. That is an absolute guarantee, which pensioners do not at present enjoy. In addition, the trustees will be able to use up to 40 per cent. of any surplus in the fund—the likelihood of such surpluses occurring is real rather than theoretical—to enhance benefits above the level of inflation. Incidentally, 40 per cent. is broadly the figure that pensioners have been getting on actuarial surpluses up until now.
Three things have been guaranteed to the pensioners —the solvency of the fund, the index-linking of pensions, and 40 per cent. of any surpluses—which they will be able to have for as long as they have pensions. That is an extremely favourable deal. It is a fairly good deal by the standards of any pension scheme. It is a copper-bottomed guarantee of inflation-proofing, plus the ability to share in the surpluses. It is a more certain deal than pensioners have now.
That is the context in which the House should address the question of Government payments to the scheme under the Transport Act 1980.

Mr. Heppell: The Secretary of State says that there will be a guarantee of about 40 per cent. of the surpluses in my pension scheme. Can he tell us what will happen to the other 60 per cent. of the surpluses in my pension scheme?

Mr. MacGregor: Those surpluses will stay in the fund, because there will be a continuing commitment to inflation-proofing and the payment of surpluses in the future. If the surpluses are insufficient, and if the fund is unable to make the payments, clearly the Government's commitment comes in and the taxpayer assists.

Mr. Heppell: To clear up that point, the Secretary of State says that 60 per cent. will stay in the fund. I understand that it will stay with the Government and they will give it to the fund when necessary. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment now that the payments that will be made to pensioners—the Government's contributions —will continue without any conditions?

Mr. MacGregor: I repeat what I said: the 60 per cent. stays in the fund, without any conditions. The issue is when the extra funding from the taxpayer comes in. That is the issue which I want to spell out now. [Interruption.] The answer is yes: the 60 per cent. stays in the fund.

Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State admitted that 60 per cent. will be kept in a reserve fund and 40 per cent. will be distributed to pensioners in the normal manner. I understand that 60 per cent. will remain in the fund but not for distribution, as it is now. At present, any surpluses made from the investments are distributed on the decision of the trustees. The Secretary of State is now saying that that will apply to only 40 per cent. of the surpluses, and 60 per cent. will be put into a reserve fund. Perhaps he could tell us why he is appointing a special Government trustee who will have some special responsibilities to the fund.

Mr. MacGregor: Let me deal with the two points. What I said is absolutely clear and in accordance with what has been happening up until now in the British Rail fund and, indeed, any other funds. There is a clear reason why the surpluses stay in the fund. [Interruption.] Putting the surpluses into reserve for the fund is the same thing as the surpluses staying in the fund. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood that. I have made it clear that the surpluses stay in the fund.
Until now, about 40 per cent. has been paid out in most cases in the British Rail fund. Clearly, when the trustees face their future commitments, and when they know that there are liabilities for the employer, the 60 per cent. is dealt with in that way. What we will have is a closed fund. Therefore, we have said that 40 per cent. can be distributed in the way that the trustees see fit. That is a very good deal, because it is in accordance with the way in which pension funds operate.
The taxpayer, rather than future employees or employers, is underwriting the fund, because we want to give the pensioners a fair deal. If we suppose that the fund does not perform very well at some stage in the future, if the 60 per cent. is absorbed in paying out index-linked pensions and the 40 per cent. commitment, and if the fund

runs into deficit, the taxpayer will step in and meet its commitment at that point. It must be clear to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East now.
There is no question whatever of the Treasury or the Government purloining pensioners' funds, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stop saying that.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The Secretary of State says that the 60 per cent. will remain in the fund. In the memorandum that his Minister signed, it says that the Government director will decide on the investment of the special reserve. If the 60 per cent. stays in the fund in the normal way, as it has in the past, surely the fund trustees will decide on the investments of the fund. Will the Minister guarantee that it will be the pension fund trustees and not the Government commissar who will control the 60 per cent. special reserve?

Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman put himself in the place of the taxpayer? We have a commitment to the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer is underwriting the solvency of the fund and, effectively, the index-linking, there must be some assurance that it is the 40 per cent. and not the 60 per cent. that is distributed in pension benefits of one form or another. That is why there must be some special reserve power to protect the taxpayer, who will be putting in further funding. There is no queston of siphoning off those funds for the other purposes that the hon. Gentleman keeps talking about.
The issue before the House today is the context in which it should address the question of Government payments to the scheme under the Transport Act 1980. At present, such payments are made each year to fund liabilities which would otherwise be unfunded. In a closed fund, with an absolute solvency guarantee from the Government, the situation is different. The trustees acknowledged this when their chairman signed the memorandum of understanding in the summer, which explicitly recognised the need to look again at the timing of those payments and to
take account on the absolute guarantee now being provided".
The absolute guarantee is a very significant change. The Government's proposal will ensure that the full value of the payments and the interest on them become assets of the pensioners' closed fund and will be counted in the overall calculation of the balance in the fund.
Let me make it clear beyond doubt that they will count as assets, and the fund will get the full value of the contributions. If there is a surplus to be distributed, counting in those assets, pensioners get that value in real money.

Mr. Andrew Smith: How can you invest in an IOU?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that there will be rolled-up interest on the payments which will be included in the value.
Under the changed arrangements and the Government guarantee, the point at which a cash injection of Government money into the fund is needed will not necessarily be every year, as it is now. That is why we want to discuss the timing of payments with the trustees. They implicitly recognised the reasonableness of that proposal when they signed the memorandum.
It remains the Government's firm intention to honour the memorandum of understanding and to reach an agreement with the trustees, as I am confident we can. We are in detailed discussions with them, but these are very technical matters and will take some time to resolve. We


have made it clear that eventually an order will come before both Houses and be subjected to full consideration. Ministers will be answerable to Parliament for the way in which they exercise and use that order-making power.
The amendment passed in the other place requires the trustees' agreement on the face of the Bill. That is quite unacceptable. It would give the trustees—a third party that is not answerable to either House—an effective veto over public spending and subordinate legislation, areas that are clear provinces of Parliament. If a future board of trustees withheld their agreement, however vexatiously, payments of money under the 1980 Act, scoring fully against public expenditure, would have to continue as now, regardless of the need for them. The trustees would be able to prevent the Government from bringing forward secondary legislation for consideration by both Houses.
That would mean that an outside body would have a veto over what comes before the House and the timings of payments of public expenditure. That is unacceptable, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had many guillotine motions over the past 14 years, and it has always been the job of the Chair to draw to the attention of speakers the fact that it is a narrow motion, and that they should refer only to the reasons for the guillotine. My hon. Friends want to debate pensions —that is why we did not want the guillotine motion in the first place—but the Secretary of State is proving the very point that was made last night. He himself is using a guillotine motion to talk about the pension scheme. That is exactly what we were protesting about in the first place. I do not want to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but he is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State was going rather wide of the motion, but I considered it in the interests of the debate that he be allowed to do so.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have liked to discuss the issues without a guillotine; indeed, I should have been able to do so had we not encountered yesterday's problems, which I have already described in detail.
I hope that what I have said has given my hon. Friends the reassurance that I know they were seeking. We shall shortly be able to turn to the other main issue that is before us as a result of the Lords amendments. For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that the attack on our guillotine motion is spurious, and not prompted by a real rage. The Opposition knew exactly what they were up to: they were out to destroy any opportunity of completing the full discussion within the two days so generously allowed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State has taken 35 minutes to introduce a guillotine motion. That is twice as long as any speech made during the debate in which the right hon. Gentleman has accused us of filibustering. I do not deny that what he has said is important; indeed, this is the first occasion on which such a statement about pensions has been made to the House. That, however, is what half our grievance is about.

The Secretary of State appears to doubt that, but he knows that the amendments were tabled in the other place, not here. The pensions provisions were changed two or three times in Committee, quite apart from the substantial changes imposed in the House of Lords. Issues of real substance are involved here, rather than merely technical matters.
The case presented by the Secretary of State and the manner of its presentation remind me of the quotation that we heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—Mrs. Thatcher's observation about the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The quotation reflects the view of the Secretary of State that was taken by the Prime Minister of the day.
In the section of her book entitled "Men in Lifeboats", Lady Thatcher wrote:
But I still wanted a new face at Education where John MacGregor's limitations as a public spokesman were costing us dear in an area of great importance."—[Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 46.]
I consider that a very apt comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, especially what he has said about the important issue of pensions.
The Opposition have been accused of wasting time. I deny that, and I resented the charge when it was made by the Leader of the House. To be fair, he said that long debates took place on only two amendments; the Secretary of State has now changed that to two groups of amendments, comprising about 100. I believe that he was wrongly advised while I was shouting at him in the heat of the moment. Now we have witnessed the unusual procedure of a Secretary of State, rather than the Leader of the House, moving a guillotine motion—perhaps because, like us, the Leader of the House is not convinced by the Secretary of State's arguments.
Let me deal with the central charge, that we have been wasting time. Of course, that is in the nature of guillotine motions. I am not arguing against the guillotine; all Governments have used guillotine motions, and we all know the reasons why. I do not wish to enter into such an argument, or even to exchange facts and statistics about which party has introduced more guillotine motions. Such arguments often characterise debates of this kind, but I do not want to engage in one today; I want to refute the charge that the Opposition were wasting time, and to put the facts on the record.
It was said on television that we spent four hours on two amendments. It was suggested that they were technical amendments which did not deal with matters of substance. That is not so.
The Bill with which we dealt in Committee was a Bill of considerable proportions. It had 158 pages, 132 clauses and 11 schedules. That is large by any measure. During the debates in Committee it increased by 28 pages, eight clauses and two schedules. In the House of Lords major changes were made, increasing the Bill by 50 pages, 14 clauses and a further schedule. We have before us 470 amendments that came from the House of Lords, a greater proportion of which were Government amendments.
No one approached Opposition Members to discuss any type of guillotine discussion about timetables. The Bill has gone through the process in the House of Commons Committee, where there was agreement. There was not even one all-night sitting. There was an agreement with the Government about the process of debate. The Government


allowed us to choose the debate period of time and also the matters that we wished to debate and we worked on that through the normal channels and accepted that.
There has been much argument about how many hours of discussion took place in Committee and in the House —109 hours, 20 days, 35 sittings, although some sittings were not completed. The Minister of State will agree that we suspended some of the sittings because the amendments that the Government wished to make to their Bill were not ready. They asked that the House or the Committee finish early because they were discussing pensions with the unions and the trustee boards. I know that the Minister of State does not deny that, because one can read what happened from the record.
Whole schedules about pensions were taken out because discussions had to take place and we had to agree to suspend some of the sittings. Major amendments were made and we co-operated. Indeed, everyone knows that if one does not co-operate the Government immediately go for a guillotine. There is much evidence of that. We know now that, after a certain number of sittings, the Government automatically move to the guillotine. They never had to do that as a result of that delay.
We never had a guillotine then, or on the two days on Report, when we went through the whole Bill in two days with agreements about debate times, and no guillotine. There is no evidence, therefore, of our filibustering. One can consider the records and the comments that were made by Ministers at that time.
We had no desire to filibuster. There were many substantial issues in the Bill that we wanted to debate. We did not go through however many hours on sittings motions; we agreed quickly and got into the debate. There is no evidence that the members of the Committee wished to delay it. They wanted to debate the arguments substantially, for a good reason.
The only reason that we wanted to debate the Bill through was that pensions was a highly controversial issue and pensions are at the very end of the Bill. That is the problem with the timetable that now confronts us.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: rose—

Mr. Prescott: I shall give way soon to the hon. Member, who has shown more than a passing interest in the pensions issue.
We wanted to allow sufficient time to discuss pensions. When we considered the motion before us for this sitting we assumed that the Government, in putting down the 10 o'clock motion, were prepared to go through the night and not cut off at 10 o'clock. Otherwise, why put it down? Therefore we could reasonably assume that it would go into the early hours of the morning. We can have debates among ourselves about how long, but it certainly suggested that the Government did not want to put it down by 10 o'clock.
We also thought that, if there were not an agreement and they went for a guillotine, we would be denied the opportunity—there are 28 debates—to get to the end of the Bill, which was where pensions were.
The Minister for Public Transport was good enough to send me a copy of the amendments and their order, and we did not protest. We took the debates as they were in subject form and said that, if they were making the case to the Table Office, we had no argument with it. When the 10 o'clock motion went down we assumed that we had some

considerable time—20 hours if we wished—to go through the process. We could have sat through the night, although we did not much want to. We have gone through the period when we went through the night simply to make ourselves look good. I do not think that it is good for the House or the Members discussing legislation.
The argument was not that there should be only two days for discussion. It was not the Opposition who decided that the House should be prorogued on Friday—it was the Government. Never has there been such a long period as 14 days between prorogation and the Queen's Speech. There was ample time, if the Government wanted it because they had got into difficulties with their legislation, to go into next week. Why not? No argument has been made as to why we should not have another week.
We have just come back from 10 or 11 weeks when Parliament has been closed. Why did the Government not find time? We assumed that they wanted to go through the two days for the amendments to go to the Lords and then, by going to the Lords, they would allow us at least to go through the night and debate the issues. The argument is whether those amendments—

Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is accurate about the Committee stage, where the discussion was fair and balanced. Does he agree, however, that, in the debate last night, the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was entirely devoted to events in my constituency, and to an issue that was not being debated? Does he not agree that that was a clear example of time wasting?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman was not here during the debate, although I appreciate that we all have different reasons for not being in the Chamber. The Chair ruled that the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was in order, so let there be no mistake about that. If it is in order, it is right and proper for any Opposition Member to raise anything to do with the Bill. My hon. Friend's speech was about the important maintenance work that takes place in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is nothing to prevent any hon. Member from mentioning any issue affected by the Bill.

Mr. Milligan: rose—

Mr. Prescott: I shall not give way again. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the debate he would have understood, but he was not. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) did, however, make an important point at the beginning of his intervention, when he asked why we wasted time last night.
Let us look at the timetable. The Prime Minister's statement took an hour, which was very proper and we do not dispute that, although it took some of the time that we could have devoted to the Bill. Hon. Members have conceded that we managed to discuss not merely two amendments but two groups containing about 100 amendments—we could have voted on every one of them, had we wanted to filibuster or delay, because there was no guillotine: that would have taken weeks of parliamentary time. If we had wanted to filibuster, we could have done so from the beginning, but we chose not to.
The first debate yesterday concerned management buy-outs. One cannot possibly say that that was a simple, technical amendment—it was an important change in the


Government's position. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State listens, he will understand the matter a little better. Why was it important? Because the House of Lords had passed an amendment to say that British Rail should have the right to bid for a franchise. The Government dispute that, and they intended to take it out of the Bill. No doubt we shall come to the right to be able to bid for a franchise in the debate after the guillotine.
The amendment concerned the Government's alternatives, and the right of management to bid is involved. The Lords amendment imposed on the franchise director a new duty, under which he must give preference to management buy-outs. That is not technical: it is a substantial amendment, which was not tabled in Committee. It was a change introduced in another place and a matter for substantial debate.
The fact that we spent two hours discussing the amendment cannot be described as wasting time, because spokesmen from both sides of the House took exactly the same amount of time.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No. I wish to continue, as I am conscious of the time.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: Let us see how clever the intervention is, then.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If Opposition Members were not wasting time last night and if those matters were so important, why did they not address their remarks more succinctly to the matter and to the amendments in hand?

Mr. Prescott: I shall come to that. I am trying to establish that we were discussing matters of substance. There may be some debate about how qualified hon. Members are to contribute to such debates, but I shall leave that subject aside. I am bound to say, however, that a matter of some substance was involved, which was relevant to a later amendment and to the Government's intention to take away what are known as the Peyton amendments, so we certainly were not wasting time.
The Minister of State, replying to the debate, said:
I will seek to answer as concisely as I can some of the points that have been raised in this important debate. It has taken two hours, but it has covered very important issues, and they need to be addressed".—[Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 72.]
The Minister of State's assessment was fair and is not evidence that anyone was filibustering or taking time. If the Opposition are filibustering, the Government are the first to point it out. There can be no doubt about that. We do not doubt the integrity of the Minister of State when he made those remarks, so it is fair to say that we were not wasting time.
On the second group of amendments, the Opposition Front Bench did not speak during the third debate and did not seek to divide the House after the third or fourth debates, although those debates concerned issues of some substance. We did not do so, because we wanted to move on to the debate on Lords amendment No. 31, about the right to be able to bid, which we knew to be important. It

was then after 9.30 pm—approaching 10 pm. I had already told the Minister of State that we would not press the matter to a Division. When the Minister was winding up the previous debate on the closure motion, I turned to the Whip and said that we would not be voting on it, so he should tell the Minister to shut up. The Whip sent the Minister a letter—I do not know whether it said "Shut up"—

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): indicated assent.

Mr. Prescott: The Minister is readily agreeing that he shut up. The Opposition spokesman told the Minister to sit down because the Opposition were not going to press for a Division: they wanted to get on with the business. That is hardly an example of the Opposition wasting time—the Minister was speaking and wasting time, and the Opposition told him that he should sit down so that we could discuss the amendment.
I disagree with the comments by the Leader of the House on the subject. We are not trying to waste time. We were clearly trying to have a debate in proper order on the mistaken assumption that the debate was to continue after 10 pm—I agree that we made a mistake there. The Government did not try to have discussions about a timetable; they simply tabled the 10 o'clock motion. I assumed that we would have discussions through the usual channels about what time we might pull up stumps, but that did not happen.
Therefore, I believe that the Government's strategy was clearly to try to guillotine proceedings as quickly as possible, and to try to argue that the Opposition had wasted time. We had agreed that we could have taken weeks simply voting on the hundreds of amendments. It had dawned on the Opposition that, if we wanted to waste time, we could do that. We did not do so, because we wanted to proceed from debate to debate, and it can be shown that we have done that.
The time allowed for the debates—two parliamentary days—was not enough. I argued that there would be sufficient time for the debates if the prorogation of Parliament was delayed. The Government could have done that. I do not know whether the Secretary of State even argued for that—I suspect that he did not. Perhaps he will tell us whether he said that he thought that the House should discuss those important matters and should have more than two days in which to do so.
He must have assumed that there would not be sufficient time to debate the issues properly before 10 pm—otherwise, the Government would not have tabled the 10 o'clock motion. The Government tabled that motion because they believed that the two days that they were offering were probably insufficient, so they wanted to introduce a timetable.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No.
We must assume that the Government wanted to guillotine debate. They wanted to avoid debate on essential matters. The guillotine has many disadvantages, but one advantage of yesterday's guillotine was that the Secretary of State gave us his view on the pension funds—a matter for debate on which discussion has already started.
Some guillotine motions include a timetable listing clauses and amendments so that it is possible to debate various subjects. The Secretary of State has said that he thinks pensions are important—we all agree on that—so I find it astonishing that he did not allocate a specific time to discuss that subject. The subject of pensions forms the 24th debate—according to the Minister's timetable, there are still 20 debates to be held in the House before that one. Therefore, it will be impossible to reach that debate unless we rush through the previous ones.
If the Minister thought that pensions and Lords amendments relating to pensions were important, why did he not table a timetable motion with specific cut-off times? That is quite normal. The fact that he did not do so is another sign of the fact that he had no intention of allowing a proper and honest debate on pensions, whatever he might say. It was entirely in the Government's hands to do so. It was not a matter for discussion with us. The Secretary of State could have advised the Leader of the House what should be done. Therefore, I assume that the Secretary of State advised the Leader of the House to do otherwise.
Why do the Government want to rush the debate and avoid discussion? They want to avoid debate on the most controversial subjects, where Government actions have provoked contention. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State talk about the two important issues we should debate, which is obviously a reflection of how important he believes those matters are. The Minister of State has spelt out many more important subjects in the document which has been given to us.
Of the "crucial" debates, one was the right to be able to bid for franchises and the other involved pensions. What about TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—involving employees' rights? Is that not important? Were we not told in Committee that we would not have to rely on existing employment legislation because the Minister of State thought it important to write the protections into new legislation? The Minister of State thought that that was important, but he changed his mind—in fact, the Government had to change their mind when the Bill reached the House of Lords. The Government have now introduced provisions that will make it much worse for British Rail employees.
The Secretary of State did not think that that subject was important enough for a debate. I shall come to that in a second or two. Therefore, we think that those issues are important. The right to bid is important, but I will not take up any time on that matter, because it is almost the first debate to which we shall come after the guillotine. I am more concerned about whether a debate on subsequent amendments can be guaranteed.
On clause 82, which deals with TUPE, the Minister made it clear that the transfer schemes made as a result of the Government's privatisation proposals will be subject to the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, thereby extending the application of TUPE to transfers other than purely commercial undertakings. That meant that the Government intended to write into the Bill that all employees of British Rail would be guaranteed that right. But what happened was that they then went to the House of Lords and made it absolutely clear that they intend to rely simply on the Act itself. That was a change of mind.
It is right for us to have a proper debate about that matter, but the guillotine will not allow it. Those

employees in the railway industry, who already face uncertainty as a result of the massive reorganisation that has gone on in the railways, and the wholesale reorganisation that will come out of the Government's privatisation schemes, now face the possibility of reorganisations once they are put into a private company.
The idea behind TUPE was to guarantee the right of workers—a right that came from Europe and had to be written into our legislation and enforced by the courts on the Government, who rushed the measure through on Third Reading in another place. That said that, if a person transfers from one employer to another, that person's rights transfer with them. We thought that that was right and proper, and we were assured by the Minister that that was the case.
Not to put that into the Bill, which is what the amendments seek to do, will mean that a British Rail employee could go to a private company, when the normal law might apply. That will mean that workers may have to go through a process of adjustment and change of rights under the present British Rail organisation. They can lose their employment rights, be made redundant and lose all the protections that are guaranteed. There is nothing to prevent them. Such workers are not transferring; they are only being reorganised at present under the same employer, British Rail.
When all that reorganisation has been completed, it is passed over to private companies. No doubt the private companies have made that a condition, saying that they do not want to pay for the conditions that are given to railway workers; that they do not want full-time workers; they want part-time workers. They might say that they do not want to be responsible for the employees' redundancy and employment rights. That is why there should be a debate. Yet the guillotine is designed to prevent that kind of debate. That is what makes us angry.
The guillotine is designed to prevent Parliament from debating a matter which we were assured in the House of Commons was one thing, but which was changed in the House of Lords. We are now prevented from having a debate on that. That is a matter of some substance. It affects every one of our constituencies. It is not a technical matter: it is a matter of considerable importance to hundreds of thousands of employees in those circumstances. The Government are relying on the guillotine to do their dirty work for them.
On pensions, the Secretary of State has constantly said, as he does in his document, that he will always guarantee that employees will be no worse off as a result of whatever pension changes the Government undertake. We are talking about a pension fund with assets of £8 billion. That is of some relevance to the coal industry and the post office, which together have about £20 billion of assets in their pension funds. All are candidates for the process of privatisation. They will not generate income for the Treasury. In the main, revenue will come from pinching the assets from the pension funds.
The Secretary of State has been good enough to point out that he believes that everything will be all right. I say that he is intending on a design to take the assets of the funds out of the pension fund. As that is my charge against the Government, let me make clear a number of things.
The unfunded pension schemes that used to apply to British Rail before 1979–80 were schemes where the Government simply paid the pensions and received the contributions. There was no fund. The Government then


—I believe that it was 1975, and it was confirmed in 1979 legislation—put that on to a proper footing. Indeed, the present Chancellor was Under-Secretary of State for Transport at that time and I was the Shadow Minister, so I well remember the changes that were taking place. The Chancellor then said that he intended to make the pension fund self-funding, so that the Government would be free from it and there would be no claim on the Government's resources.
The Government's one obligation was to consider what their capital obligations were to the fund and assess them on a yearly basis. That amount was considered to be about £70 million per year. That money was the Government's obligation to pay to the pensioners. There is no doubt about whose money it was. It belonged to the pensioners. Those are the kind of moneys the Secretary of State is talking about when he talks about IOUs, but I will come to that.
There is no doubt that the Government had an obligation to pay that yearly amount. On that point alone, as the Secretary of State well knows, the Government intended originally to wipe out that amount. They said that they wanted to cancel that amount. There was a wholesale protest from the pensioners and the trustees, and eventually in Committee the Government agreed that the money would continue to be paid. On that matter alone, the Government offered the House of Lords an IOU. The Government said that they would not make the yearly payment. They said that they would give an IOU, which could not be cashed, was non-marketable and would not be in gilts.
It fills me with great joy to believe that I could receive an IOU from the Government. I do not know what it would be worth today, but it is suggested that it could be cashed only in the year 2000. It could not be used to buy any assets. It could not be invested to make money. It is simply an agreement by the Government not to pay now, which presumably was helped by the generosity of the pensioners, who do not agree with it, to help deal with the public sector borrowing requirement that the Treasury wants to reduce. The £80 million that belongs to the pensioners in the first place is to be put on to an IOU. That is what is happening, and the Treasury saves £80 million each year. That £80 million belongs to the pensioners and its repayment is to be delayed until some time in the future.
I was thinking only the other day, when we talk about compensation for nationalised industries or private industries that are renationalised, what an interesting formula that is for compensation. If we were using the same formula for compensation for capital, Conservative Members would be screaming that it was robbery. The fact that the Government can do that for the pensioners and get away with it without any word of disagreement from Conservative Members is quite deplorable.

Mr. Milligan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trustees of the scheme agreed to the principle of going ahead in that fashion? What they are concerned about is the way that the measures are implemented, the rate of interest that is paid, the maturity, but they have accepted the principle that the hon. Gentleman is saying is such a fraud.

Mr. Prescott: I will come to that point. It is a good point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to come to it. As he knows, the trustees were

concerned that they would not have any control over those matters. The House of Lords was concerned about the solvency matter, to which the Secretary of State referred. That was the argument of Lord Peyton. It was said that the Government would give a promise. The other place did not feel that that was enough—an interesting point—and did not like the idea of an IOU. That came from a Conservative ex-Secretary of State for Transport.
The Government, in the debate in June or July, said that they would talk to the trustees about that matter and come to some agreement. They did. There was an agreement between the Government, the board and the trustees. It was entitled:
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transport, the British Rail Pension Trustee Company and the British Railways Board",
and it spelled out some of the issues to which the Secretary of State has referred. But the issue was whether, in the making of orders relating to any changes affecting the fund, there would be an agreement with the trustees, or simply consultation. First, it was said that it was not possible to write that into the Bill. They came up with a formula, which was rushed through because the debate was to be the next day.
The chairman of the trustees fund, Mr. Derek Fowler, was sent for, along with James Jerome. They concocted the memorandum of understanding. It deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh by saying:
the Government remains committed to support payments to certain BR pension funds. The timing of such payments will be agreed with the Trustees and will take account of the absolute guarantee now being provided.
They went to the House of Lords saying, "Pensions in our time," but like the other document, "Peace in our time," it was not worth the paper it was written on. The first thing that the lawyers of the trustees fund said was that it did not mean anything because it does not refer to anything in the Bill. Therefore, it is just a statement. It does not mean anything.
The chairman of the trustees made it clear that he thought that he had been kidded by the Government, by which he means the people who signed the document, acting on behalf of the Government: the Minister for Public Transport—the fact that the Secretary of State did not sign suggests that the matter was a difficult one; he always keeps out of trouble, this guy. Derek Fowler, chairman of the British Rail pension fund and James Jerome, the British Rail board member responsible for finance signed, but they felt that they had been duped. They were told that the word "agreed" would be used, but when the Government came forward with their amended version, it contained the word "consultation".
All hon. Members know that there is a heck of a difference between having to have an "agreement" about what is done with £80 million and "consultation". One does not need to be a lawyer to know the difference between those two words. Hon. Members can well understand then why the chairman of the British Rail pension fund, having agreed this without the agreement of the other 11 trustees, was disowned by them. He had thought that the word "agreed" gave him a kind of veto. If the Government's position is that the use of the word "agreed" creates problems, did they not know that when they wrote the document, or did the Government put it in knowing that people could be bought off, that they would


not be able to do anything about it, that perhaps they would not check, and they might even believe the Government? Well, they did. What fools.
The document is not worth the paper that it is written on. The Government do not offer agreement, they offer consultation. I have some time and respect for the Minister for Public Transport, who deals with many difficult issues, but I am bound to ask: does no one resign any more?
What is the Secretary of State's responsibility? If the document does not mean what it is said to mean, if the words do not mean anything and were simply used to buy votes in the other place by suggesting that there was agreement, that sounds like a Government who cannot be trusted—a Government with whom one cannot afford to have an agreement. They sign documents to convince the other place that everything is all right and then they have the audacity to come back here and tell us that everything is all right with the pension fund. Did the Secretary of State not read the document? Did he agree it or will he now blame the Minister for Public Transport? Will the Secretary of State say whether he read and agreed the document?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made my position absolutely clear. We shall reach agreement with the trustees. We have made it clear that if there are differences and we cannot reach agreement, those points will come to the House and it will be for the House to decide because we are talking about public expenditure. An outside body cannot have a veto over decisions on public expenditure which are for the House. We are having good discussions with the trustees. We will do everything that we can and we believe that we shall be able to reach agreement, but we cannot pre-empt the right of the House to decide on public expenditure matters or the right of the Government to bring proposals before the House.

Mr. Prescott: Did the Secretary of State read the document?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes.

Mr. Prescott: So the Secretary of State signed a document saying that there would be agreement with the trustees. The chairman of the trustees, who did not have time to consult his board, signed the document telling his trustees, "I had to do it last night, but don't worry—the Government can't do anything unless they agree it with us." The other place was informed of that acceptance but the Government had no intention of using the word "agreed", for the reasons that have been given. That is misleading, to say the least. I do not know what parliamentary language could be used to describe such actions, but they are not honourable ones.
Hon. Members need not open their mouths to show shock and disbelief. If the Secretary of State is telling me that he does not understand the words and their meaning, he should not be in the job. I believe that he did understand the meaning of the words and he dealt with the matter in that way so as to kid the other place that the Government had an agreement with the trustees, despite the fact that only the chairman of the trustees had been involved. The chairman was then left to hang and dry and neither has had the decency to resign over the matter.

Mr. MacGregor: I have made the position clear throughout. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman still to be going around the country saying that the Government

intend to take pension fund money from the pensioners, which is what he has been saying time and again. That is not the case and it is time that the hon. Gentleman stopped saying it.

Mr. Prescott: The House will recognise that the Secretary of State knows that he is in difficulty and wants to move the debate on. This is a matter of importance to a man of great integrity who put his name to a document because he believed the Government. I have a copy of a letter dated 26 October, which I understand was sent to the Secretary of State, saying:
What I had not foreseen when I signed the memorandum was the Secretary of State would be given powers to virtually take over the fund if the solvency guarantee was to be invoked. In my letter dated 15 October I expressed my concern about the implications for future real pension increases of your proposals to cease making cash payments in respect of the Government's statutory obligations in the 1980 Act. I restated that concern at the meeting with Mr. Roger Freeman.
The letter continues.
That man, a public servant, was misled by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. That is a serious matter. It seems that we are not to have a proper response from the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. At least the Secretary of State has now admitted that he did read it, so he cannot put the matter entirely on the Minister of State's shoulders. We will leave the people to judge for themselves, having heard the debate or read it in Hansard, what they think of the Secretary of State's competence, and to remind themselves what the Prime Minister of the time thought of the Secretary of State.
I come now to another issue which exercises the mind of the Secretary of State. He now apparently disputes my accusation that the Government intend to obtain access to the pension fund and to use its assets. First, I make it clear that the £80 million will not go to the pensioners at the moment and that the Secretary of State is retaining rights over that. Therefore, we can reasonably agree that the Government have taken £80 million on an IOU which, on the word of the Secretary of State, is to be repaid in the year 2000. The word of the Secretary of State did not last three months in the other place, so I do not attach much importance to it. The Secretary of State will have to admit that that £80 million is now being kept by the Treasury to help with the public sector borrowing requirement.
It is concern for the public sector borrowing requirement that has largely motivated the privatisation of British Rail. Not much income will be generated from the sale. The Secretary of State has already admitted that the taxpayer will have to pay twice as much—£2 billion—to run it. The Department of Transport has been making an assessment. The Secretary of State has already admitted that it will cost more, so the taxpayer and the fare passenger will pay more for fewer services. The argument has been well made. The Treasury's concern is how it can get at the pension fund assets.
Having established the facts about the £80 million, I now put a matter of record to the Department of Transport.
It will be recalled that the National Bus Company, with assets of about £190 million, was sold for £45 million. The Public Accounts Committee was astounded at such a sale, although I am bound to say that it is quite usual for the Department of Transport. Because it got some money, it thought that it was making money. The Public Accounts Committee investigated. When asked what price had been obtained for the National Bus Company, the Department of


Transport said £200 million, £150 million of which came from the busmen's pension fund, which was broken up in the same way as is now being suggested, and the money went to the Treasury. Does the Secretary of State deny that? Apparently not, even if he knows about it. However, that is true and he can check for himself.
I have now established that pinching from a pension fund is not new. The Government have already done it with National Bus and they are starting to do it with British Rail. Now it is a matter of judgment whether one can believe the Secretary of State when he says that the Government do not intend to do that. We already know that the trustees could protect pensioners if the trustee's agreement was required, but the Secretary of State is offering only consultation.
The Government can restructure the fund. The rights and powers that Mr. Fowler talks about relate to the fund being made insolvent. The Secretary of State is already beginning to take money out of it with his 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. formula on surpluses. Fewer resources will be in it—yet, for technical reasons that I shall not go into here, the demands of the 1975 pensioners are growing. This is a fund that has no extra income going into it because it is a closed fund, so in reality it is likely to move towards insolvency.
Let me tell the Secretary of State what will happen then. He might not be here—he probably will not—but the good old Treasury civil servants will always be here whatever Government are in power, and they will restructure the fund. It is agreed that the surpluses and the distribution of assets in that closed fund will be about £2 billion. The Government will then say to the pensioners, "Look, why don't we go back to the old times? Why don't we agree to pay you your pensions and we will take the assets for now? We will pay you over a period, and we will take your £2 billion to help us with the public sector debt." That is not unique for the Treasury. It is possible, and the changes in the rules which are contained in the amendments which we are not allowed to debate will allow that to happen. That is why we make the charge against the Secretary of State.
The guillotine is not about time, but about the essential issues that were still to come. I understand now—I am sure that the House will understand also—why the subject of pensions was to be left until the end of the debate. The guillotine has enabled us to discuss pensions. If the debate had continued, we would have raised those points when the subject was to be discussed. However, the guillotine has allowed us to do that now.
The Secretary of State made no mention of disagreements over memoranda of understanding. He has tried to cover his tracks. Therefore our charge is that the guillotine is not about wasting time during debates on technical issues. The issues affect a quarter of a million pensioners and railway workers. The guillotine is about the money that is in the fund that the Government have no right to claim, and which they are to attempt to claim on what I notice is the second anniversary of the Maxwell swindle of pension funds.
The issue is one of the Government breaking their word. It is an issue of deliberate deceit. The guillotine is designed to prevent debate, and cover up the actions of a dishonest Government. They are a Government of incompetence, a Government of duplicity and a Government of disrepute.
Above all, they are a Government who are attempting to rob railway employees and railway pensioners of their rights and pensions—and they are attempting to do that with a guillotine which damages the process of democracy itself.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) began by attacking the Secretary of State for speaking for 35 minutes. The hon. Gentleman spoke for exactly 40 minutes, and took fewer interventions than my right hon. Friend. That suggests that the hon. Gentleman is less than aware of his own verbosity.
The hon. Gentleman was accurate when he said that there was agreement between both sides on Committee. There was a fair debate, with no attempts to filibuster, and the issues were discussed fairly. However, yesterday afternoon something went badly wrong, and there was an outbreak of verbal diarrhoea among Opposition Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "You were not here."] I was not here for a good reason. [Laughter.] Hon. Members have not heard the reason. I wished to wait for the debate on the main amendment, and I did not want to waste time as Opposition Members did.
There are two possible explanations for the outbreak of verbal diarrhoea.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milligan: I will not give way at the moment.
There are two possible explanations. The first is that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has been unable to spend a great deal of time on railway matters. He was unable to attend the majority of Committee sittings, and we know that he has an eye on the deputy leadership of the Labour party and may be moving to another job. The hon. Gentleman obviously hoped that some of his colleagues who assiduously attended the Committee would help him by making lengthy speeches. That would obviate the need for him to go through a complicated set of amendments. What possibly happened—as happened with the assassins of Thomas à Becket—was that the followers followed the master's instructions rather too assiduously. That is perhaps an uncharitable explanation.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the pensioners of Eastleigh will note that, following the analytical account of their prospects made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), all that their Member of Parliament could do was engage in a juvenile assault on my hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman's analysis concerns the only debate at which he was present, which was the first debate yesterday. Will he tell the House whether he specifically disagrees with the Minister who wound up the debate? The Minister said that it had been a full and important debate, and that many points had been raised by the speakers, who spoke alternatively from both sides of the Chamber? Is the hon. Gentleman dissenting from the Minister of State's view of the debate? Will the hon. Gentleman perhaps turn his attention to the issue of pensions, and in particular the letter from the chairman of the British Rail pension fund?

Mr. Milligan: My hon. Friend the Minister is polite, and he was certainly right to say that the debate had been


full. I might have chosen a slightly different adjective. My hon. Friend was also right in saying that the debate was important, because it drew the real objectives of the Labour party to the attention of the House. The intention was not to have full debate on pensions—an important issue, I entirely agree—but to force the Government to a guillotine. The objective of the Labour party was to embarrass the Government, rather than to have a proper debate. That is the second possible explanation for the verbal diarrhoea from Labour Members.
I wish to cite in evidence an interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I know the hon. Gentleman well, because he is my pair. He is assiduous in the House, and he speaks on a wide range of subjects including housing, overseas aid and the railways. The hon. Gentleman always makes relevant points, is an extremely competent hon. Member and does not waste the time of the House.
The hon. Gentleman spoke last night—unfortunately, I was not here—and he has gracefully apologised for not giving me warning that he intended to devote the whole of his speech to events in my constituency. Those events related to the future of British Rail Maintenance Limited, which is very important. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the subject with my hon. Friend the Minister, who has made a series of helpful suggestions of which, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the speech had been entirely in order. I do not know whether he was here last night, but it is clear in Hansard that, on two occasions during the speech by the hon. Member for Itchen, Mr. Morris interrupted to point out that the speech was out of order. The speech was clearly not relevant to the debate.
It is perfectly clear that Opposition Members tried last night to force the Government to impose a guillotine. That is what happened. It is important that the Bill is passed, and I will be supporting the Government tonight.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the discussions is that we have not had the proper time to debate two crucial issues. The first of those is the right that is now being given to British Rail's bid for franchises, which I welcome. I want the process to move forward gradually, and I want the private sector to compete on a level playing field with the public sector. That is called market testing in other areas of Government. BR should have the right to bid, provided that the bid is not unfair vis-a-vis those management buy-outs that have extremely optimistic prospects. I welcome the revised guidelines to the franchising director that will make it clear that a private operation will not be able to take over a franchise unless it provides a better service than the existing BR service.

Mr. David Nicholson: I wish to make a point that I did not make because the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) refused to give way to me. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was prepared to go through the night on the matters, and he also made it clear that the important debate on British Rail bids—my hon. Friend is addressing the subject now—probably would be reached at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. There are hon. Members who want to listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have to say—and

also question him—on that delicate matter. Is it sensible for hon. Members to do that at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Milligan: My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point, and it is unfortunate that there will not be a proper debate as a result of the antics of the Opposition yesterday.
The new guidelines to the franchising director make it clear that private operators must provide better services than the existing BR service if they get a franchise. If BR retains a franchise, I hope that it will do so for a significant period. It is not specified in the Bill what that period might be, but I hope that it would be about six or seven years. That would give BR a real chance to make the service work, and would provide genuine competition between the public and private sectors with the simple aim giving the best possible service to the passenger.
I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democratic party has made an important contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) appears surprised; perhaps he did not read his party's manifesto at the general election, which clearly favoured privatisation and the franchising process. On 2 March, the hon. Gentleman made a most interesting speech to the Committee, during which he explained that his party would not support the Bill for one reason. The reason was that BR would not be allowed to bid for franchises. The hon. Gentleman made it clear to the Committee that if the Government were to have a change of heart to allow BR to bid for franchises on fair terms, the Government could count on his party to support them in the Lobby.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) said a moment or two ago that he was keen to see market testing of the services. The difference between what the Government's proposals and market testing is that there will be no competition on a level playing field of the sort that I said on 2 March that I wanted. If that were to happen, my party still would be perfectly willing to support the measure. British Rail is being allowed to bid, but in every imaginable circumstance the bid is to be disregarded. That is not a market test; nor is it competition on a level playing field. It is a complete and utter fix.
Some Conservative Members have been saber-rattling over the past few weeks, trying to convince their constituents that they are rebels. It is a poor do if those hon. Members can be convinced as easily as that. If the Government give us competition on a level playing field, they will get support from the Liberal Democratic party. However, what stands before us as a Government amendment does nothing of the kind.

Mr. Milligan: That comes as no great surprise to us, because the Liberal party twists and turns on every issue. The hon. Gentleman says that BR will not be able to compete on a level playing field. If he believes in privatisation and franchising—perhaps he no longer does—he must accept that it is extremely important to give management buy-outs, which are a difficult and fragile operation, a genuine chance to succeed. To force the same BR managers to make a choice between bidding as a management buy-out and bidding as BR will not work. So the compromise that the Government have come up with is a good one.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked at some length about pensions. That is a critical issue for


my constituency, where there are 2,000 railway pensioners, and for the hundreds of thousands of railway pensioners across the country. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that pensions are one of the most important issues in the Bill.
I must say in all honesty that the Government's original proposals were not satisfactory. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen were justified in criticising those proposals. They would have left pensioners in a worse position than before. The railways pension fund has been extremely well run. It has yielded real increases in pensions. People who have given a lifetime's service to the railways are entitled to a decent pension. There is no reason why privatisation should in any way materially affect them unfavourably.
Ministers rapidly recognised that the original proposals were not satisfactory. It was regrettable that it took so long to reach a proper agreement. However, the memorandum of understanding signed at the end of July was, indeed, such an agreement. It provided guaranteed indexation and it provided that pensioners could continue to share in the surplus. Most important, it gave the fund a Government guarantee against insolvency. Those three measures taken together put the pensioners in a better position than they are in now.
It would be graceful of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to recognise the achievement by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the railway trustees. I pay tribute to the way in which the trustees stuck at their task through a long and difficult negotiation and relentlessly pursued the interests of the people whom them represent.
One important issue is outstanding, but it should not obscure the overall settlement. The issue is payment under the Transport Act 1980 to people who served before 1975—not only those who retired in 1975. It was agreed between the trustees and the Government that, in return for the solvency guarantee, those payments, which currently run at about £50 million a year would be rescheduled to take account of when the liabilities came due. The matters that have not been agreed include the maturity, the valuation of that capitalised gilt-edged stock and the rate of interest. Those are vital matters, on which pensioners must be given answers if they are to be reassured.

Mr. John Heppell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the trustees have agreed to deferment of payment only on the basis that no scheme would be introduced without the agreement of the trustees? Does he agree that the position changed when the Government sought to change the memorandum of understanding? Originally it required the agreement of the trustees. The Government sought to make it only consultation of the trustees.

Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that point. There is a legitimate and genuine issue here. Parliament has to be sovereign on matters of public spending. No outside body can have a veto over parliamentary decisions. Although it is most unlikely that the trustees would behave irresponsibly, they might renege on the agreement and demand both the solvency guarantee and continuation of the present payments. The interests of Parliament and of the taxpayer—who is not often represented by Opposition Members—have to be considered.
I have talked to the chairman of the trustees. Although he shares the view of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), he does not share the view of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that he was duped. He believes that the Government have behaved honourably.

Mr. Prescott: He says it in the letter.

Mr. Milligan: He does not say that he was duped. He says that the trustees need guarantees.
There is a genuine legal problem. We cannot give an outside body a veto over decisions about public spending. However, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to give some additional guarantees to ensure that the matter is settled to the satisfaction of the pensioners, the trustees and all involved.
First, can the negotiations on the matter resume as soon as possible? Secondly, can the negotiations resume on the basis that the new arrangements for the present net value are the same as the old arrangements? Although the payments may be rescheduled, there should be no effective monetary loss at today's value. Thirdly, if, by any chance, agreement is not reached, will the Minister come to the House, explain why and set out the views of the trustees before any further legislation to implement the agreement is brought before the House? If the Minister does all three of those things, it will be possible for him to satisfy the interests of the pensioners.

Mr. Stevenson: Can the hon. Gentleman help me, please? I am listening to the debate carefully, as I did throughout last night, which is more than he did. Is the hon. Gentleman calling on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to conduct the negotiations on the basis of the memorandum, which referred to "agreement", or on the basis of consultation of the trustees? I am sure that he would agree that consultation and agreement are entirely different. The word "consultation" is contained in the amendments before the House.

Mr. Milligan: I am asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek to achieve agreement. I accept my right hon. Friend's argument that it is not possible to write into primary legislation an argument which gives an outside body a veto over parliamentary sovereignty. That would be wrong. However, it is vital to seek the agreement of the trustees. If that cannot be achieved, the Minister should come to the House and explain why. The House will judge whether it is a proper explanation. If it is not, it will not pass the necessary secondary legislation. That is a reasonable way to proceed.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milligan: I will not give way. I have given way many times. Everyone is complaining that more time is needed to discuss other issues. I support the motion. I support the Bill. I believe that if privatisation proceeds gradually, is tested at each stage and is undertaken on the basis of improving freight and passenger services rather than on the basis of dogma, it will be greatly in the interests of the country. I will support the Government tonight.

Dr. John Marek: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) never ceases to amaze me. The hon. Gentleman could have asked for guarantees from the Minister when I first tabled an amendment on pensions in Committee. With the Conservative majority of one, something might have been done about the problem. Did the hon. Gentleman say anything? Not a bit of it. He slavishly followed exactly what the Minister said, with the result that the opportunity for changing the pensions legislation was lost. So it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to come along here now and say, "I want some guarantees, Minister; please will you help me?"
The hon. Member for Eastleigh made one of the longest speeches that has been made in the past two days, apart from the Front-Bench speeches, which were worth every minute. We learned a lot from them and I would not have missed either of them. The hon. Member for Eastleigh made one of the longest speeches of yesterday or today, yet he complains that Opposition Members filibustered. He showed himself up. He was not here yesterday except during the first part of the debate.
The only helpful comment that the Minister made about British Rail Maintenance Ltd. was in essence to say that there would be redundancies. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. He can read Hansard.

Mr. Milligan: I think that my speech was about 17 minutes on the clock and half of that was interventions. I read carefully the words of my hon. Friend the Minister about BRML in Hansard. It is a matter of great importance to my constituents. There is a threat of redundancies because the modernisation of trains means that they need less maintenance. About half the jobs are under threat. That is why, when we had a meeting last week, my hon. Friend the Minister made the helpful suggestion of creating the Eastleigh liaison group. He has promised to attend every meeting to find other ways of retaining the jobs by bringing extra work to Eastleigh. I greatly welcomed that suggestion.

Dr. Marek: If the hon. Gentleman had been here during the debate yesterday, he would know that the Minister said precisely the same thing as he has just said. There was a debate on the special function of Eastleigh. It maintains carriages which are run on the third rail. But the hon. Gentleman was not here for that debate. He should read Hansard. The Minister did not give much hope. I suspect that BRML will be in great difficulties as a result of the Bill when it reaches the statute book. The hon. Member for Eastleigh has the chance to make amends to his constituents by voting against the Bill or voting against the guillotine motion. Whether he will take that chance is another matter.
The Bill has been largely rewritten. There are pages and pages, looking through the Lords amendments as any hon. Member knows, and the Government have sought to argue that most of the changes are technical and do not need a lot of debate and that there are only two issues that require debate—the question of pensions and whether British Rail could have the right to bid. Since the hon. Member for Eastleigh is in favour of BR having the right to bid, are there any of my hon. Friends who were in Committee who heard that from the hon. Gentleman at the time? Another

amendment in my name was defeated by one vote. If the hon. Gentleman had faced up to that issue a little earlier, we might have had a different result.
I do not accept that, because the pages and pages of new amendments and proposed legislation are technical, we should not have time to discuss them. We had only a weekend to consider them. I took the precaution of asking the Vote Office to post them to me and I received them on Friday. I did not receive the Government amendments to the Lords amendments until later.
It is not my job to accept the Minister's word that 50 pages are technical and we therefore should have gone home to bed at 10 o'clock yesterday and should go home at 11.30 tonight. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott): there is no reason to sit all night tonight, but last night we should have sat all night and done our duty to the country, the travelling public and the railway employees and considered all the technical amendments and changes that have been suggested by the Lords. Not a bit of it. We cannot do it.
The debate yesterday was not filibustered in any way. People made normal speeches. If the time is totted up, the chances are that it was the Minister who spoke more than anybody else, by a substantial margin. I do not say that to embarrass the Minister. It is right that the public and hon. Members deserve an explanation of all the amendments. On the fourth set of amendments, which would have been passed on the nod, the Minister said that they were important. I agree that they were important amendments—not necessarily so important to deserve half an hour or an hour's debate, but certainly deserving of four or five minutes of ministerial explanation followed by a chance for any other hon. Member to ask questions. Unfortunately, nothing like that will be possible tonight, as we are having a setpiece debate.
I shall not speak for long because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, but we will not do the duty, as is normal, of examining the Bill line by line. The Bill will go through the House without that being possible. Yet the Government need not have got themselves into such a position. They could have allowed a third or a fourth day, and if they had allowed us to debate overnight, I doubt whether a third day would have been needed.
Contrary to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), I did not count 128 amendments that had been discussed, but 99, which, out of 470, is more than 20 per cent., so I do not understand why the Secretary of State for Transport said that we would be here until Christmas if we were to discuss all the amendments. I admit that that is a somewhat selective statistic, but it is not as selective as that chosen by the Leader of the House yesterday.
It is a great pity that the media seemed to swallow that statistic hook, line and sinker without being present and checking the facts so that they could give the public an independent and objective view. However, 99 amendments from 470 are about to be disposed of, and would have been disposed of on the nod if the Minister had not said that the fourth group was important and that it was necessary to spend three or four minutes explaining them. At that rate, if we had carried on yesterday, we would have been finished by now.
I utterly reject the view of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State, who has not said much in Committee, on Report, or during Lords amendments—I am not denigrating him for that, but it is shown by the


record—that we have been filibustering. We have not. We have been trying to get into shape a stupid Bill, which most of the country does not want and which now cannot be put into reasonable shape or made operable. Nevertheless, we have tried.
Clearly, there are two important issues that we must discuss. The first is the right of British Rail to be able to bid for franchises. When a proposal is sent back from the House of Lords—the revising Chamber—because it wants the House to think again, there is no reason for the Government to say, as they did earlier, that we have discussed that matter ad nauseam, and therefore do not need to do so again. There have been new developments and we owe it to the country, if the revising Chamber asks us to think again, at least to discuss it again and see whether to change our minds.
Secondly, the issue of pensions has developed a great deal and we should be able to talk about such important matters that may vitally affect the pensions and livelihoods of British Rail employees in the present climate, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I agree with the Secretary of State that, to the extent that public money is involved, the Government should be accountable and should have a final say in what happens to that money, but most of the money in the pension fund is not the Government's—at the moment, none of it belongs to the Government.
My fundamental argument is that the money in that pension fund is for the benefit of pensioners and should never, ever come under the control of the Government. It is a great pity that, as a result of the guillotine, we will not be able to develop those arguments any further.
I consider it an outrage that the Government allowed this second-rate, botched-up Bill to be introduced, will allow it to be passed—unless Conservative Members come to their senses—and have succeeded in forcing through a guillotine to stop discussion on vital matters.

Mr. John Biffen: One of the charming characteristics of guillotine debates is that they transform themselves so that they are rarely about guillotines, but rather an opportunity to discuss the Bill about to be guillotined, as so eloquently shown by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan).
I shall reflect on the thoroughly unsatisfactory situation in which the House now finds itself. Once one discards the pyrotechnics and rhetoric that customarily grace such occasions and are cheerfully exchanged from one side of the Chamber to the other, the truth is that no House of Commons having even a modest regard for the self-respect of legislators would be presenting them with such an extensive and conscientious Bill to be dispatched in two days. For it to be against the expected proroguing of Parliament makes the imperative even more incredible.
I was not in the least surprised that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced the guillotine. Had I been sat on the Conservative side, I would have shouted whatever improving and encouraging remarks, if I felt them necessary in these dark days, and if I been on the Opposition Benches, I would have shouted with all the contrived venom that was manageable.
The truth is that we are here because, as a House of Commons, we are allowing the Executive, whether it be Conservative or Labour, to determine the passage of business by such means. That is not what the House is for. Originally, a guillotine was a very unusual development, so the cry of constitutional outrage had just a touch of truth about it. One had to be at least a mild thespian to give the impression that one was deeply concerned. Now, a guillotine is an integral part of the passage of a Bill. Nobody supposes for one moment that it could be otherwise, and I do not.
However, with the present arrangements and with the control so heavily weighted in the hands of the Executive, we find ourselves in a different position. The guillotine is perfectly understandable, but nonetheless is set out in terms that I do not believe to be helpful to the House, not least because the House will be debating a number of matters, whether the franchises or the pensions, in which the disputes do not run along the fault line of party politics. All the more reason for the Executive to get the matter dispatched as soon as possible.
We do not have to endure such a procedure as part of the humiliation of the Back Benches. A report of the Procedure Committee sets out the virtues of automatic timetabling for a whole range of legislation. It still awaits the determination and judgment of the House. The House sleeps in the prospect of that. It passes measures undebated and practically unnoted and, to some extent, is gradually being forgotten. That is how the House reacts to its circumstances, and as long as it is complacent and compliant, it will be neglected.

Mr. John Heppell: I start by declaring an interest. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that he was the only Member who hoped to live long enough to draw a British Rail pension. I hope that he does not know something about my health that I do not know, but I also hope to draw a BR pension. I hope that it will still be there after the Government have finished their machinations.
One of the surprising results of serving on the Standing Committee was the affection that I began to feel for the Minister for Public Transport. Some feel that he behaved badly in Committee, but I thought that he performed marvellously, given that the Bill was so ridiculous. At times he made it seem almost believable, and that earned him the affectionate title of "Roger the Dodger" as he moved his way through the pitfalls that the Government had set into the Bill.
A more fitting nickname for the Minister, and for the Secretary of State, would be "The Exterminator". I say that not because they have managed to do their best to get rid of the railways as we know them now and to cut away the constitutional right of Members of Parliament to debate the issues, but because, during the passage of the Bill, I have seen more ratting than a local government employee working in pest control. The Government have ratted on almost everyone—British Rail employees, the passengers, the passenger transport executives and the pensioners. If the latest information is true, they have ratted on the trustees of the pension fund as well.
I had meant to speak on a number of issues but, in showing why the guillotine is wrong, I feel it important to speak on pensions in particular. My hon. Friend the


Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was wrong. We dealt not with 99 amendments last night but with 127, although we did not get to the vote on the last 28. I am realistic. I recognise that, with 470 different amendments, after 730 in Committee and 250 on Report, there was not a cat's chance in hell that we would get through the business in two days. I knew, and I think that most hon. Members knew, that we would have a guillotine at some stage. But I did not expect the guillotine to come at 10 o'clock.
What would have been wrong with the Government allowing us to go on until 12, 1 or 2 o'clock? Why was it that, when hon. Members were present in the Chamber wishing to debate issues—employment rights, British Rail's right to bid, and pensions—we were not allowed even those few hours? The Government took the decision to curtail the debate, using the reason that hon. Members were filibustering, before the reality of 128 different amendments being dealt with was known to the Leader of the House.
My main concern about pensions is the Government's contribution to the scheme. I had my first assurance on that from the Government in July 1992, when they said that they would take measures to safeguard my pension. That did not happen. On 20 January, they changed the wording and said that they would ensure that the terms of my pension were no less favourable. They then came up with two options, effectively a Hobson's choice. Neither of them made my pension terms more favourable, as I have said before.
The Government then went to the chairman of the trustees and persuaded him to sign a memorandum of understanding that guaranteed the solvency of the pension fund while in return the Government were allowed to borrow some money in the short term. I would not have agreed to that, but I can understand the pressures that the trustees were under. They were given a Hobson's choice because, if they refused that option, they might get nothing from the Government and the funds would be taken under Government control. Therefore, after the chairman, the other trustees signed the memorandum of understanding.
The Government have since ratted on that memorandum. Originally, they said that the timetable for paying the money back would be through an agreement with the trustees; now they are saying that they will work it out themselves. The arrangement that the Government want is to borrow the money but repay it when the pension fund needs it. I wish that I could tell my bank manager that I would like to borrow £5,000 and pay it back when I thought that the bank needed it. I know what my bank manager would say to that. I know what I would say to the Government as a member of the British Rail pension scheme: it is not on.

Dr. Liam Fox: Surely what matters, what is important, is what happens to the pensions. The Secretary of State spoke about guaranteed payments, inflation-proofing and a share in the surplus. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Secretary of State was misleading the House?

Mr. Heppell: The hon. Gentleman will know that it would be unparliamentary of me to suggest such a thing. I will let the facts speak for themselves.
On 22 April the Minister made a statement—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State will listen. He might then understand what is happening with the

pension fund; when he made his statement, he clearly did not. Let me go back even further. In 1980, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, decided that he wanted to rid himself of the railway pension fund. At that time, it was a non-funded fund and the Government had complete responsibility for it. The then Minister decided that the Government would wash their hands of their commitment.
It was not what the trustees or pensioners wanted but what the Government wanted. He said, "Okay, we owe you a lot of money, so we'll give you these payments, but it's a once-and-for-all settlement. There will be no negotiating afterwards. If the fund goes bust, your pension has had it. We've washed our hands of the issue."
What good is the word of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury is now trying to claw the funds back? The Government now say that they will no longer pay those funds, but will keep them separately and look after them. When the trustees ask when they will get them back, the Government say that they cannot give a date. When the trustees ask how much they will get back, the Government say that they cannot give an amount. When the trustees ask when they will get it, the Government say, "You'll get it when you need it." When the trustees ask whether they can decide when they need it, the Government say, "Oh no, the Government will decide when you need it."
It is a deceitful mechanism to try to ensure that the Government transfer the money from the pension fund to the Treasury, just as they would have done with the options which they originally gave the pensioners last July. The Government have always had their eyes on the pension fund, and they are determined to do that.
Another reason why the guillotine motion should not go through is because of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, the employment rights enjoyed by people in this country. Article 8 of the directive on acquired rights says that, on transferring from one undertaking to another, people's employment contracts—length of service, pay and conditions—go with them. The Government have never liked legislation that protects ordinary workers but, because it was a European directive, the article had to be made law and that was done by TUPE.
TUPE effectively rewrote those articles and said that, in future, when people changed from one undertaking to another their employment rights went with them. In Committee, the Minister made it clear that he had included a special provision that TUPE would apply in all cases. That satisfied Opposition Members, and the debate about employment rights disappeared at a stroke. We said, "Fair enough, if TUPE is to apply, we have no worries whatever." It is annoying to find that, now that the Bill has been through the Lords, the Minister's undertaking has been taken out.
The Government have gone further and introduced a new clause trying to evade TUPE. They have invented a mechanism to try to avoid a law of their own making. What message does that send out to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham would say, their "cronies in the City" and those who have their eyes on our pension funds? What message does it send out about respect for the law when the Government are trying to devise mechanisms to get round their laws?
The Government are saying that, before people transfer to a different undertaking, their pay can be reduced, their


hours can be increased and their employment rights can be changed. It is clearly a mechanism to evade the law and the Government should be ashamed of themselves not only for doing that but for offering compensation to employees. They are paying out compensation from taxpayers' money to make it easier for private companies to employ people on starvation wages and for unworkable hours.
The Government resisted one Lords amendment to stop a 72-hour limit being placed on railwaymen's hours of work. Legislation exists to limit the number of hours worked by people who drive on the roads and of airline pilots, so why do we not have legislation to limit the hours worked on the railways? I shall not feel safe to know that an employee of one of those new companies can drive for more than 72 hours a week. How can he be expected to be alert under those conditions?
For all those reasons, the guillotine motion is wrong, and I hope that the hon. Members will vote against it.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I shall not detain the House for long, because we wish to move from this debate to discuss the fundamental Bill and the Lords amendments as quickly as possible.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought up the subject of pensions, and it has been well developed on both sides of the House. I was entirely reassured by statements by my right hon. Friends in the Chamber and in written form in recent months. To the best of my knowledge, all the pensioners who have been in touch with me on that matter—there have been quite a number—have also been reassured.
However, some people outside the House are not yet reassured—not through any fault of the Government, but because the matter has been stirred up so despicably by Opposition Members, whether they are pensioners of British Rail or are doing it just for political reasons. That has caused sufficient worry that reassurance is still necessary. I hope that my right hon. Friends will reassure the House that they will do everything in their power to provide that reassurance to people outside the House who are genuinely worried about their future pensions.
I thoroughly endorse the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). We could organise our business better so that we can at least spend some time on everything, even if we are not satisfied with the amount of time that we spend on some things. I hope that the Government and the Whip will take that message back to the Leader of the House, so that we can consider as soon as possible the Select Committee on Procedure report, the age of which I cannot remember.
I expressed my discontent with the sudden arrival of the guillotine motion yesterday evening and had an opportunity to discuss it with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other luminaries of the party organisation in the House after the statement had been made. I was not entirely convinced by the rationale, but now I am completely convinced, because I fear that Ministers have been bested by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who made it absolutely clear that, as a destructive Opposition, he intended to make the Government go right to the line, which would mean risking the loss of the Bill.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rathbone: I shall do so in the hope that the hon. Gentleman is brief, which is what I intend to be.

Mr. Snape: Before the hon. Gentleman goes down that road, he should remember that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover spoke today, he did not speak in yesterday's debate.

Mr. Rathbone: I shall not contradict the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), because I know that he intends to pursue his own way towards his pension to the bitter end. I wish him well in that endeavour, and I hope that the Secretary of State's remarks have reassured him.
The intention of the hon. Member for Bolsover to go right to the line shows the divergence of opinion in the Opposition parties. There was a difference between the statements made from the Opposition Front Bench about good intentions and statements by other Opposition Members. Therefore, the Government were, sadly, right to introduce a sudden guillotine. If we have to vote upon it, I hope that we shall do so swiftly, so that we can deal with the amendments as quickly as possible.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State has told us, as did the Prime Minister earlier today and the Leader of the House last night, that 185 hours or more have already been given to the Bill. We have heard about new clauses, and about 2,000 amendments have been tabled. One is entitled to ask at the end of all that why there are still more than 400 amendments. Those are not wrecking amendments tabled by Back Benchers or by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who seems now to be regarded by some Conservative Members as the official Opposition: they are Government amendments.
I have here the Bill that went to the Lords and the document containing the amendments that came back, and one is twice as thick as the other. We are virtually being asked to consider a new Bill. What sort of Government are they who, two days before the end of the Session, are still presenting to the House such a mammoth amount of material for consideration?
It is right that, in the earlier part of yesterday's debate, progress was somewhat slow, but that was the first opportunity for some months that the House has had to debate the Bill. We were guided by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the effect that, as the clauses being amended were general, it was in order to have a general debate. As a result, the debate on the first group of amendments was of the nature of a fourth Reading.
It is completely untrue for Ministers to say that we have considered only two groups of amendments. We were on the fifth group yesterday and had reached the stage at which no hon. Member was attempting to speak. To all intents and purposes, we had disposed of 99 amendments, and were therefore some 20 per cent. of the way through consideration of this mammoth document. When stumps were drawn at 10 o'clock last night, we were within seconds of starting the debate on the all-important amendment about British Rail's right to bid.
All sorts of assertions have been made by Conservative Members about the tactics of the Labour Opposition. I am not conversant with what those tactics might have been, but at 10 o'clock we were about to begin that debate, and


I had every indication that we would vote on the matter at 11.30 pm. It is untrue to say that unsatisfactory progress was being made.
Three important debates were scheduled for yesterday. The first was on management buy-outs and the second was on assets, and we were about to debate BR's right to bid. That would have left three more significant groups of amendments to deal with today, on discount fares, employment rights and pensions. I can vouch for the fact that the official Opposition were encouraging me to do everything possible to reach a point at which enough time would be left for an adequate debate on pensions. Any suggestion of an attempt to delay matters is not borne out by the facts.
Just as we were about to start the debate on what the Government say is the all-important topic, it was decided that three hours of Parliament's time should be allotted to discussing the guillotine motion. If we had gone on for less than three hours last night, we would have made more progress that we are making now.
The reason for that state of affairs is that the Government's handling of the legislation has been shambolic. Those who served on the Standing Committee will know that, time after time, the Government were only a day ahead of the Committee in tabling amendments. They were tabled at the last possible moment, and all too often they were starred. The Government were reprimanded by the Chairman of the Committee for their discourtesy to him and to the members of the Committee.
On one memorable occasion the Minister of State, in his normal steady manner, presented amendments on which the ink was hardly dry. By the time that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had made a good breakfast of them, the Minister had to admit that they were technically incompetent and would be withdrawn and replaced.
That is the story of the Government's handling of the Bill, time and again. A minute or two before the guillotine announcement last night, the Minister of State declined the offer by his hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to move it formally. The Minister insisted that he needed to speak to the amendment at hand because it replaced another Government amendment which, he admitted, had been incompetent. Too much of the Government's material on the Bill has been incompetent.
Yesterday, we had the spectre of primary legislation being made deliberately vague so that the courts could later clear it up. There is considerable Government precedent for that. The poll tax cost this country about £14 billion, and two or three years later the Government had to put the entire subject of local government finance to the test again with more legislation. The same happened over criminal justice.
If the Government did not railroad legislation through so arrogantly, they would not have to return to put right their own mistakes. It is little wonder that we already hear rumours that, even at this late stage, the Government realise that the Bill is technically incompetent and that another Bill may have to be introduced in the next Session to clear up loose ends.
The Government seem to be applying the principle of market testing to their legislation. They introduce legislation, see how it works, and a couple of years later return with more. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) spoke about market testing, but this is not market

testing. In its current form, the Bill allows BR to bid, but in every imaginable circumstance the bid will be disregarded.
The Government do not give the franchising director one shot at this: they give him four. On the first shot, he has to skew the bidding to featherbed a management buy-out; on the second, he has to skew it to featherbed the efforts of a new entrant to the sector; and on the third, he has to do it in the name of competition. If, after all that, he has not managed to disregard a BR bid, he is required to prevent anyone from being over-dominant in the market.
When we start from a market in which one supplier has 100 per cent., one can scarcely in any circumstance not meet the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's definition of a monopoly. That covers every conceivable bid. It is the "I don't like your face, so you can't bid" rule.
Hon. Members who during the summer and the autumn have attempted to flex their muscles by telling the Government that they will hang out for BR bidding, have secured nothing. The concessions that I wrung out of Ministers in Committee and on Report were—

Dr. Liam Fox: Name them.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I shall name them directly. One was that BR would be able to submit not only historic costs but a business plan at which the franchising director would be obliged to look and also to examine the bottom line figure and the projected balance of the plan. That would have meant that, in every circumstance, a private bidder or a management buy-out bid would have had to beat that figure. It is not even achieving that. British Rail's figure could be disregarded, at least in the plan that I characterised as a ghost Bill, although the Government never recognised the term.
At least, under that scheme, the passenger could be guaranteed that the bidder would have to do better than British Rail and the taxpayer could be guaranteed a better price. The Bill is much worse. It is not competition or market testing; it is market rigging. It is not about trying to secure the best possible deal for the passenger; it is about Conservative party philosophy. It is because the Government want to put the industry into the private sector.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh said that, if the Liberal Democrats were in favour of privatisation, we would be in favour of the measure. We are not in favour of privatisation, but we are in favour of the best possible service for the passengers. There is no philosophical problem with the private sector competing. In Sweden, when the national carrier was exposed to competition from the private sector, it improved productivity, reliability and everything else. That option was available to the Government, and we said earlier that, had they taken that path, they could have looked forward to some support.
The Bill is nothing of the kind; it is not market testing. It is small wonder that recently the author of a book was able to say after the Conservative party conference that Thatcherism was alive and well. She need do no more than look at the Bill to be totally convinced that Thatcherism is indeed alive and well.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I am most grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that, when right hon. and hon. Members


have the opportunity of reading the Official Report tomorrow, at least on this occasion they will see that I was in the Chamber.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). As all hon. Members are aware, my right hon. Friend is a wise counsellor. I agree with my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) about the importance of bringing forward the Jopling proposals as quickly as possible. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take note of what my elders have said.
I took the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North in 1989. I knew that his counsel was wise then. I followed it, and that is why the hon. Member for Southport sits on this side of the House. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind me pointing out that not all that long ago he was Leader of the House, and the Executive were still fairly powerful then.
It is important that we look carefully at how we timetable our debates. I listened to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who yet again is not in the Chamber. He spent most of our debate yesterday outside the Chamber.

Mr. Snape: So did you.

Mr. Banks: I hear what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, apart from a very short time when I took refreshment, I was here in the Chamber. That is why I can recognise and record which Opposition Members were present for that debate; I shall come back to that in a moment.
I should mention the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) just before he leaves the Chamber. He said that he thought fairly early on that the Government had decided to introduce a guillotine. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I beg to differ. After I had spent most of the debate in the Chamber and listened carefully to hon. Members on all sides of the House, it was clear to me that it was very late in the day that right hon. Friend decided to table a guillotine motion.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the amendments under discussion yesterday afternoon were widely drawn indeed. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, no hon. or right hon. Member really fell foul of your ruling. In spite of those amendments being widely drawn, there was no doubt that the speeches of Opposition Members were rarely succinct and not always relevant to the amendments under discussion.
Had Opposition Members been a little more concerned about making a team effort and acting like a proper official Opposition—they were shown up by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover, who were here earlier for only a few minutes—and had made a better stab at things, it would have been possible for us to get on and talk about the particularly important amendments on pensions and the so-called Peyton amendment. I hope we will be able to get on with those debates at the conclusion of this guillotine debate.
I did not have to be convinced by the words of the hon. Member for Bolsover, because it soon became apparent precisely what the official Opposition were doing. I

thought that they were shooting themselves in the foot at 10 o'clock, when my hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the guillotine motion and a number of Opposition Members made various points. None of those hon. Members is in the Chamber now; nor were they here throughout the debate. I look around the Chamber to see if they are here now.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East): I am here.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South, to name but four, all stood up after 10 o'clock with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described as synthetic anger. That describes the whole charade fairly well.
Of course, it is not just the official Opposition who wasted time yesterday, knowing full well that we had a relatively limited amount of time to debate these important amendments. I see that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has just arrived. I do not think that she was here yesterday.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I was.

Mr. Banks: I know the hon. Lady is in the Official Report as having voted, but having sat through most of the debates, she was not here regularly. Only the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) was here throughout most of the debates yesterday afternoon and evening. Yet the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) came to the House at 10 o'clock to stand up with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described as their own synthetic nonsense. They did not even enter the Chamber throughout the afternoon, so far as I am aware, to take part in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) was very kind to say that he saw the way the debate was flowing, and that the hon. Member for Bolsover had convinced him of the filibuster that was taking place. Some Conservative Members are slightly less charitable than my right hon. Friend. We were very much aware of what was happening by about 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening. Opposition Members really have to decide.
I see that the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) are not here. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh mentioned earlier, they are hatching a plot to depose the leader of the Labour party. One really has to set an example.
I am not about to criticise Opposition Members for filibustering and talking on matters other than the guillotine if I do not follow an appropriate course myself. My hon. Friend for Shropshire, North made that point. He has briefly left the Chamber, but he was right to come to the House and make it clear that it is about time that the Jopling proposals saw the light of day. Many Opposition Members, including the only member of the Labour Front Bench who is present, have been in the House longer than me and know how debates proceed. They should have been able to make a far better fist of tackling my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport than they did.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I would like the House to stop playing I spy and to debate the guillotine motion. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was right when he said that in introducing the motion at such an early stage, the Government showed contempt for the House. They brought 470 Lords amendments before the House and we dealt with 100 last night. Still the Government want to stifle debate.
For more than a year, the Government have been desperately trying to make their case for rail privatisation, but they have lost the argument. The Secretary of State is left like the emperor with no clothes and he shuts down debate to hide his nakedness. That is what happened today. We oppose that, believing that the 470 amendments that have come from another place should be properly debated. The Government's straitjacket on debate will prevent the House from considering many important Lords amendments that it has a right to discuss.
I will put a number of points to Ministers now, because the House will not otherwise have a proper opportunity to debate them. The question of the national railway museum and the national heritage is one that affects my constituency. In another place, Lord Caithness, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, said that the Minister for Public Transport would write to the museum and
do all that we can to make provision which is as favourable as possible to the museum".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 1993; Vol. 548, c. 563.]
That related to the museum's right to claim redundant documents and artifacts. The Minister wrote to the museum in July, stating:
Noble Lords also stressed the importance of retaining the broad rights of first claim which the museum presently enjoys. I am happy to accept these proposals, and to introduce provisions in the Bill which will give a right of claim to artifacts in both the public and private sectors.
We argued long and hard about that in Committee and in July, at the last moment, the Minister gave an undertaking to introduce amendments to permit the museum to remain the national centre of rail heritage in this country. Did he do as he promised and make sure that appropriate amendments were tabled in another place before it finished its consideration of the Bill? No, he did not. He made a promise, but he failed to make good that promise. Why?
What measures does the Minister propose to ensure that the national railway museum continues in the future, as in the past, to have a right of first claim on redundant railway equipment and records, at no cost? No material cost will be imposed on either a public or private sector rail operator, because the equipment in question will be redundant. Why did the Minister fail to honour his promise, and what will he do to put that right?
I seek an assurance that investment levels will not decline. In British Rail's 1992–93 annual report—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to be wide of the debate. Some latitude has been allowed by the Chair, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments relate to the guillotine motion or to the amendments to which it refers.

Mr. Bayley: If the House had been given time properly to consider all the amendments, it would have had an opportunity to debate future investment levels. There will

be no such debate, so I want the Minister to say how investment levels for rolling stock, signalling, track and infrastructure will be maintained at historic levels. If that is not done, there will be huge redundancies in the rail manufacturing industry. The arguments were explored on previous occasions, but I want that answer from the Minister.
As to the amendments on clause 105, the Bill makes provision for the Government to write off British Rail's historic debt, which the annual report puts at almost £2 billion. If that sum is to be written off, it will have to be written off by taxpayers to make privatisation more financially attractive to private sector operators. Why should taxpayers in my constituency foot the bill for privatisation? Why should retired railway men and women on low pensions who pay income tax also have to meet a £2 billion cost after spending their lives building up a rail system that is now to fall into the hands of private operators?

Ms Glenda Jackson: In common with my hon. Friends, I was exceedingly surprised when the guillotine motion was imposed on almost 500 amendments from another place. As other right hon. and hon. Members pointed out, we have been denied the opportunity to debate what is virtually a new, alternative Bill.
Conservative Members, including the Minister for Public Transport, were highly critical of the Opposition for wanting to debate what were described as purely technical amendments. The possibility that many of my constituents, particularly those who are disabled, may never again be able to use a train because stations on the north London line are unmanned and will remain unmanned is by no means a technicality. Many women are afraid to travel after dark because it is frightening to find oneself on an otherwise deserted station with no one to give assistance in either earshot or eyesight.
My constituents want to use the railways and to see the British Rail network expand. That was their understanding and mine of this whole farrago of a Bill. However, debate on extremely important issues is being curtailed because, according to the Minister, the amendments are purely a technicality.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who I regret is not in his place, repeated an allegation that was made by Conservative members of the Committee—that the concern expressed by British Rail pensioners at what they viewed as threats to their pension fund by the Government and the Bill was motivated by the Opposition. I would like to be able to tell the hon. Member for Lewes that those of my constituents who are BR pensioners take that presumption of lack of character on their part very hard. I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Lewes has now returned to his place.
My constituents who are members of the BR pension fund have dedicated their lives to the railways, are extremely hard-working and are immensely responsible and sensible people. Their concern about the attack on their pension funds stems not from what the Opposition have said, but from what the Government have done and are continuing to do. That is one reason why I am so concerned about the guillotine motion that is being imposed upon us today.
The Secretary of State said that pensions had been fully debated. He neglected to point out that changes in the pension arrangements certainly have not been debated in this place. Confirmation that he is attempting to make changes without any debate comes from the chairman of the BR pension board. On 20 July, the memorandum of understanding mentioned earlier in the debate was agreed between the Department of Transport, the trustees and the British Railways Board. It was supposedly binding on all parties. In a letter dated 26 October, Derek Fowler—the chairman of the BR trustees—wrote to the Minister saying:
I certainly did not envisage the cash payments would cease indefinitely when I signed the Memorandum.
In fewer than three months, the agreement that the signatories to it thought was binding on all parties was in the process of being changed by the Government.
A particular issue of concern to the trustees is that in the initial wording of the memorandum agreement was reached that changes to the method of payments under the 1980 Act would be made only with the agreement of the trustees. The memorandum stated:
The Government's obligations will be reflected as an asset of the Pension Fund and will be taken into account in determining any surplus available for pensioners. We intend to agree the details of such an arrangement with the Trustees, and we will lay before Parliament, in due course, Orders which will give effect to such agreement.
Now, the Government are changing the wording of the memorandum to replace "agreement" with "consultation", which will allow them to override the wishes of the fund's trustees.
As Derek Fowler said in a further letter to the Secretary of State dated 6 October:
It is proposed to change the wording of the Memorandum of Understanding to provide that payments under the 1980 Act may be changed after consultation with the Trustees and not, as previously provided, by agreement with the Trustees. Such fundamental change is unacceptable to the Trustees.
The Government are attempting to railroad the changes through the House without proper debate. British Rail pensioners are effectively being penalised for the success of their own pension fund. Is not it deeply ironic that the Government should be doing so at the same time as they are attempting to entice people away from dependence on state pensions? They are using the pension surplus to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, effectively forcing pensioners to pay for the Government's mistakes and broken pledges.
The Government have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy on the pensions issue, as was proved by the correspondence from Derek Fowler. What other guarantees given during the course of the Bill and in today's debate can be believed by the pensioners? The lack of guarantees and the lack of time being provided by the Government to debate almost 500 Lords amendments makes me understand why so many BR pensioners now say that the initials "BR", as they relate to the pension fund, no longer stand for "British Rail", but for "bank raid".

Mr. Brian Wilson: It is a shame that we have had a three-hour debate on a guillotine motion when instead we could have continued with our consideration of the substantive issues in the Bill. The move certainly does not appear to have done the

Government a great deal of good. Last night they gained themselves the opprobrium of cutting short the debate. Today, they have provided a platform from which to say a great deal about the pensions issue. In addition, they have moved the debate on the right to bid from late last night to a relatively prominent time today. That does not strike me as a tactical masterstroke.
It is important to set the record straight on some of the factual reasons why the guillotine motion is a disreputable exercise. First, it is essential that the House understands that no approach was made to the Opposition to arrange a timetable for our proceedings on Lords amendments, despite the fact that a timetable had been agreed and observed throughout the Committee and Report stages. It is clear that, if the Government had wanted a timetable, they would have asked for one. It is equally clear that they knew last Friday that they would do exactly what they did last night and when they would do it.
Secondly, the statements made last night by the Leader of the House were inaccurate, as has been shown today. He made those statements in the Chamber and also in notices given to the press—for example, he said that only two amendments had been dealt with in five hours. That was fallacious nonsense. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was deeply uncomfortable with the task allotted to him last night, so it is significant that he has distanced himself from today's proceedings.
Thirdly, the debates last night were legitimate and were recognised as such by the Minister of State. It is interesting to note that, in addition to nine ministerial speeches, there were three extensive speeches from Tory Back Benchers —as was perfectly legitimate—and nine interventions from other Conservative Members. The idea that there was an Opposition monopoly on speeches is simple fabrication.
Fourthly, if the debate had proceeded last night, we would have reached the amendment on the right to bid not in the middle of the night, as some Conservative Members have suggested, but at 10 pm. There was absolutely no need to curtail our proceedings at 10pm. The Government did that for their own reasons—their desire to limit debate in and scrutiny by this House. They did so in the full knowledge that the more scrutiny there is by this House and by the wider audience outside, the more their proposals are discredited.
Another point worth putting on the record is that the fact that the Government now have such a tight timetable for getting the Bill passed is entirely their own responsibility. The fact that they are counting the hours before Parliament is prorogued is entirely their responsibility. They have only themselves to blame for the way in which they have handled the Bill from start to finish—introducing amendments at every stage and virtually rewriting the Bill, culminating in 470 amendments being made in the other place.
It has been a farcical procedure, as it had to be because the Bill is inherently so deeply flawed. One consolation for the Opposition is the knowledge that, no matter how often the Government rewrite it, how extensively they change it or how they try to patch it up in response to objections, it will still be deeply flawed when it is enacted and the chickens will then come home to roost. There will be big political trouble for them, not for us.
As has been said by several of my hon. Friends, it was farcical to say last night and today that the proceedings must be rushed through and that we can speak for only an hour or two on pensions and an hour or two on the right to


bid, with great swathes of amendments not even being considered—yet on Thursday the Government are sending us away for another fortnight's recess. They do not want Members of Parliament in the House. Indeed, it has now become the general rule that they want the House to sit for as little time as possible, because when it is sitting the political focus is on this place and that it is not in the Government's interests.
For all those reasons, what we witnessed last night and today is a charade. There was no need to curtail the debate at 10 pm last night. We knew that at some stage the Government would rescue their Bill. We knew their timetable and we knew that they were expecting more trouble in the other place. I am sure that the Minister of State listened to the "Today" programme this morning, when Lord Peyton had certain things to say about the amendments. I was delighted to hear that he was less easily impressed by bogus compromises than were the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and one or two others who paraded their consciences during the summer, but who now apparently feel able to give the Secretary of State everything that he wants. So we hope that the principles and concerns of those in the other place will be more consistent than those of hon. Members. It would be wrong to comment on what will happen in the other place, but as it voted for the amendments in the first place it is not certain that it will be bought off as easily as some hon. Members.
The issues have been well covered by my hon. Friends. We shall debate some of them, but as I shall not speak much later I should like to express my deep distaste for the performance of Ministers in the debate on pensions. I still have not decided whether the Government first thought, "We are going to get our hands on pension fund surpluses, so we have to privatise the railways," or whether rail privatisation came first and, as a byproduct of that, they realised the phenomenal implications for the Treasury.

Mr. MacGregor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State feigns disgust. Will he have the decency to inform the House of the potential implications for the public sector borrowing requirement of the action that the Government are taking on the railway pension fund? We shall then see whether the sums involved and the political implications are consistent with this shrug of the shoulders and his comment that it is ridiculous to say that those implications entered the Government's mind.
If the Government had introduced the Bill without assessing the political implications of what it would allow them to get away with, from their point of view it would have almost been a dereliction of duty. If those implications did not occur to the Secretary of State—given Baroness Thatcher's comments about him, that is conceivable—we can bet our bottom dollar that they occurred to the Treasury.
My comments on pensions are a lot less important than those of the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company. The Minister for Public Transport is pointing at the clock: he does not want to be guillotined when he speaks later. Before the summer recess, that chairman had been prepared to take the word of Ministers that everything was going to be all right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, in his superb analysis of the matter, the chairman did not manage

to persuade other trustees to take the word of Ministers. However, this man, who was taken in by the Government, wrote to the Secretary of State on 26 October 1993, saying:
I very much regret the need to have written to you three times in less than three weeks on fundamental differences of view between the Government and the BR Trustees…The steady erosion of what I thought had been agreed seems to justify the sceptical approach taken by many of my colleagues and others to that Memorandum.
What an indictment of Ministers, of the Government and of their integrity.
We shall continue the fight on behalf of pensioners. We shall alert them and ensure that the future not only of the railway pension fund but of every pension fund in the country which is at risk from the Bill will be as major a political issue as rail privatisation. If Ministers are unable to rebut those words of the chairman, they should not be sitting on the Front Bench.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has many endearing qualities, but careful attention to the clock to allow sufficient time to respond to a debate is not one of them.
Before I deal with the extremely important issue of pensions, may I say to the hon. Member for Hugh Bayley—[Laughter.] I meant the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). [Laughter.] As I wanted to make a serious point, I shall come back to it.
Let me deal with the issue of pensioners. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who put his finger on the point. This issue has been stirred up deliberately by the Labour party to create quite unnecessary fear, and the Liberal Democrats are not absolved of that charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) was absolutely right and I pay tribute to his constructive contributions. I ask Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen whether they challenge what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said on four issues.
First, there is no dispute that pensioners will have their own independent pension fund—their own assets, with trustees responsible for managing the fund. There has never been a suggestion that the Government would take those assets and it is disgraceful of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to go round talking about those assets being pinched and in the same breath asserting that the Government are as guilty as Mr. Maxwell. That is a calumny, and it causes unnecessary fear in the minds of pensioners.
Secondly, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, is there any question about the solvency guarantee provided by the Government and the index-linking of railwaymen's pensions for inflation? Of course there is no doubt.

Mr. Prescott: Of course there is.

Mr. Freeman: Of course there is no doubt about that, because it is on the face of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
That represents a major change since 1980. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then a Transport Minister, promised continuing payments during proceedings on the Transport


Act 1980, he did not do so in the context of a Government guarantee on railwaymen's pensions. The scene has changed completely—at the request of trustees.
Thirdly, there is no doubt that railwaymen will have a 40 per cent. share in any surplus created by the good management of the pension fund. That 40 per cent. is the same percentage as pensioners have enjoyed since the pension fund was created. In the past, 60 per cent. of the pension fund surplus has been distributed to employers and to the current employees of the pension fund. Therefore, we are proposing no change.
Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot challenge the fact that, in addition to an index-linked fund, 40 per cent. of the surplus will go to pensioners. That is an excellent deal. I know of no other pension fund in the public or private sector that can guarantee such an excellent opportunity.
Do Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen challenge the fact that continued accrued liabilities under the 1980 Act will not continue to benefit the pension fund? There is no doubt about that. Those are accrued liabilities. The payment of cash under that accrued liability depends on the need of the pension fund to pay out index-linked pension payments.
I give my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh the assurances that he asked for—that discussions with trustees will continue, that the memorandum of understanding will be honoured, that we will seek an agreement with the trustees and that we will seek parliamentary approval of the schedule of payments under the 1980 Act. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh knows, the Bill obliges us to lay before the House the comments of the trustees on the conclusions that we reach. There can be no question but that we have dealt honourably, correctly, fairly and well with the pensioners. The Opposition are stirring up trouble unnecessarily.
Finally, in the few remaining minutes, I shall spell out the reason why we have a timetable motion. Yesterday we spent five hours on two groups of amendments. I acknowledge that we were discussing important issues. The first group dealt with management-employee buy-out bids. That is, of course, important, but it was not a new principle, as it is already contained in parts II and III of the Bill. I took seven minutes to respond to that debate whereas the Opposition spent two and a half hours debating what is a narrow issue.
The second group of amendments covered the powers of the franchising director to include in franchises the ability of the train operating companies to access stations. A further two and a half hours were spent on that—if that is not wasting time and filisbustering, I do not know what is.
The truth was revealed this afternoon—the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) let it out of the bag. He asked whether we realised that we could be here all night, every night this week, debating all the amendments. That was not the agreement with the Opposition; the agreement was to allow two days.
I understand that this evening the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) released to the press a private record of conversations between me and the chief executive of British Rail. That is disgraceful, because the effect of releasing such a document, which was written not by the

Department of Transport but by someone presumably present at that meeting, can only embarrass the chief executive. It is disgraceful—

Mr. Bayley: I do not think that any embarrassment caused by the release of that document will land on the shoulders of the chief executive of British Rail; it will land on those of the Minister, who was told by the chief executive that, in relation to the rail privatisation proposals, he was
in a hole and still digging".
He told the Minister for Public Transport at that meeting that he would have nothing left but
a car boot sale. I am not joking.
They were his words.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman released a document—

Mr. Prescott: Is it true?

Mr. Freeman: It is typical of the Labour party to conduct debate by releasing such a document.
I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 286.

Division No. 380]
[6.42


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Ancram, Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Congdon, David


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dicks, Terry


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Elletson, Harold


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)






Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lidington, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lightbown, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Fry, Peter
Luff, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gallie, Phil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
MacKay, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclean, David


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Madel, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hague, William
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Milligan, Stephen


Hannam, Sir John
Mills, Iain


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Harris, David
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Sir Roger


Hawkins, Nick
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moss, Malcolm


Heald, Oliver
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hendry, Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Norris, Steve


Horam, John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Page, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pickles, Eric


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Richards, Rod


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon lan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger





Skeet, Sir Trevor
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tracey, Richard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tredinnick, David


Soames, Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Spencer, Sir Derek
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Twinn, Dr lan


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spink, Dr Robert
Viggers, Peter


Spring, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stephen, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Whittingdale, John


Sweeney, Walter
Widdecombe, Ann


Sykes, John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Willetts, David


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomason, Roy
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Derek Conway.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Alton, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Austin-Walker, John
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John


Battle, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dafis, Cynog


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyce, Jimmy
Dowd, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Enright, Derek


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Fyfe, Maria






Galloway, George
McWilliam, John


Gapes, Mike
Madden, Max


Garrett, John
Maddock, Mrs Diana


George, Bruce
Mahon, Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mandelson, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gordon, Mildred
Martlew, Eric


Gould, Bryan
Maxton, John


Graham, Thomas
Meacher, Michael


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hanson, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hardy, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morgan, Rhodri


Harvey, Nick
Morley, Elliot


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Hara, Edward


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Olner, William


Hoyle, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pendry, Tom


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (Alvn and D'side)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mön)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Tessa
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rogers, Allan


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Salmond, Alex


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Simpson, Alan


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MacIennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel





Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Watson, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W(Carmarthen)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wise, Audrey


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, Jimmy


Trimble, David
Wright, Dr Tony


Tyler, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Railways Bill:

LORDS AMENDMENTS

1. The proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the adjourned proceedings.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

STAGES SUBSEQUENT TO FIRST CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS

3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceeding; to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

SUPPLEMENTAL

4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown—

(a) for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons; or
(b) for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

(5) If the proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the

House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance and help? I have an office in Deans Yard which, as you know, is about a quarter of a mile away from the House. If one travels by car when one hears the Division bell one usually gets help from the police when driving round Parliament square. Apparently, unknown to me, the police have suddenly decided that they will not cover Divisions, so when one gets to the filter light which allows one to get into the Palace there is nobody there to help one through. I nearly missed the vote this evening because of the traffic jamming Parliament square. Secondly, having arrived in New Palace Yard with only seconds to spare, I found that the police have now put out "No Waiting" and "No Parking" signs so that one cannot stop, either. We have a new problem, and I do not know why. Perhaps there are too many rules and regulations, and we need deregulation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I shall, through Madam Speaker, draw that matter to the attention of the usual channels.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised a similar point nearly a week ago. I am sorry to say that, although there has normally been a courteous response to such matters in the past, I have heard nothing, and nothing has changed. My office is in Parliament street where the traffic is extremely busy and the traffic lights can be against pedestrians for up to three minutes. The withdrawal of police support is contrary to the rules of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the message. I have told the House that I will draw it to the attention of the Speaker.

Railways Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 30 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 22

PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATORS NOT TO BE FRANCHISEES

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 24, line 37, at end insert—
("(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent—

(a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"); or
(b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board,

from being a franchisee.")

7 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may consider the following Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 31: (a), in page 24, line 40, at end insert—

'(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (1) above shall not prevent—

(a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), or
(b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board,

from being a franchisee.
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, whenever the Franchising Director proposes to issue invitations to tender under section 23 below in respect of any particular services for the carriage of passengers by railway, he may, after consultation with the Board and the Regulator, determine that neither the Board nor any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board shall be eligible for inclusion among the persons to whom the invitations are to be issued or who may be selected as the franchisee.
(5) The Franchising Director shall not make a determination under subsection (4) above unless he considers that it is desirable to do so—

(a) for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises;
(b) for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest;
(c) for the purpose of encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry; or
(d) for the purpose of preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons in the market for the provision in Great Britain, or in a part of Great Britain, of services for the carriage of passengers by railway.

(6) The Franchising Director shall—

(a) give notice of any determination under subsection (4) above to the Board; and
(b) publish notice of the determination in such manner as he thinks fit.

(7) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to affect the matters which the Franchising Director may take into account in determining the other persons whom he invites to tender for franchise agreements or whom he selects as franchisees.
(8) No objectives, instructions or guidance shall be given under section 5 above by the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director with respect to the exercise of his functions under this section.
(9) In this section—
"competition for franchises" means competition to become franchisees under franchise agreements;
"encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry" means encouraging private sector operators who do not currently provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway to commence doing so;
"qualifying railway employees", in the case of any franchise agreement, means persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement.'.

(b), in page 54, line 36, after '20' insert '21, 23'.

(c), in page 72, line 2, at end insert—
'( ) every notice of a determination under section 22(4) above;'.

Mr. MacGregor: As the House knows, we discussed similar issues on Report on 25 May when a Labour amendment along the lines of amendment No. 31 was tabled. The Labour amendment was rejected by a majority of 19 after a lengthy debate. After the Lords amendment tabled by Lord Peyton was passed, I made it clear that the House of Lords was asking us to re-examine the arguments, and that I would wait until the Bill had passed through the other place before I made our position known.
Since the passage of the Lords amendment, we have had detailed discussions with many people, including a number of my hon. Friends, about the issues, and what I am proposing in our amendment is the result. Therefore, I urge that we disagree with the Lords in their amendment and pass our amendment instead.
The House will be aware of our concerns about allowing British Rail to bid for franchises. They are not simply our concerns. They were spelt out many times during the debate on 25 May when I set out our objections, with which the House agreed at that time. The most important concern is that British Rail starts out as the monopoly operator—indeed, the sole operator. Its privileged position, backed by the taxpayer, will discourage other potential franchisees from bidding and make it more difficult for management and employee teams to prepare and support bids for franchises.
With the best will in the world, senior British Rail management are bound to favour their corporate bids at the expense of management-employee buy-outs. Those who want to mount management-employee buy-outs would be hesitant, to put it mildly, about going against senior management in that way.
We already know—my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has talked about this already in our two-day debate—that many managers in British Rail are keen to submit management-employee buy-out bids. However, they have made it known that, if British Rail bids against them, they will have severe difficulties. We need to address that issue. I think that Tory Members and, I hope, the whole House are in favour of encouraging management-employee buy-outs. After the vote yesterday, it is clear that Labour Members are not in favour of encouraging management-employee buy-outs but certainly all Tory Members are.
The second problem is the chaos and confusion that would result—I know that many people in British Rail are concerned about this—if the Lords amendment went through unchanged. Chaos and confusion would arise because, in many cases, the managers who will be asked to submit the British Rail bid will be keen to submit their own bids. Clearly, that is a recipe for complete confusion. To deal with that specific point, a British Rail source is reported in The Daily Telegraph yesterday as asking what


would happen if the British Rail Board asks the same people—there is not a limitless supply of experienced managers—to prepare bids on its behalf for the same franchises. It is an impossible conflict of loyalty and will put many managers off altogether. It is not clear at what point the franchise director will step in to rule that a board bid is acceptable or otherwise. Obviously, that comment was made before the Government's amendment had been seen, because our amendment makes clear the point at which the franchising director will step in. He will step in at an early stage to avoid unnecesary and fruitless bids and to clear up the uncertainties to which the source refers.
My third point is that it would be much more difficult to develop a healthy, competitive market in passenger railway services if British Rail were given unfettered discretion to bid for and operate franchises. We need to secure competition between franchisees which means avoiding market dominance by any one operator. That has been the clear purpose of our reforms, and one of the main benefits will come through that competition.
There are problems about transparency in bidding—problems of possibly unfair playing fields, cross subsidies and so on. The point is—I think that many people still misunderstand this with regard to our reforms—that there is no single big bang, no private flotation and no "Sid". Inevitably, the franchises will be granted over a period because the franchise director will be preparing different ones. We have indicated seven franchises that we regard as his priority.
In setting up the franchises, a track record of the separate business operating as a shadow franchise will have to be established so that bidders will be in a reasonable position to prepare bids. Inevitably, that means that not all bids will be happening at once—they will come through gradually. If British Rail is able to compete on each franchise at a different stage, that will increase the risk of unfair competition for bidding. Certainly, everyone who is preparing to bid will think that that is the case.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State says that a track record will have to be established on the service that is franchised. Can he clarify whether the managers who are running the shadow franchise and establishing the track record—the same team of managers—will be allowed to bid for the franchise? If so, is there not some incentive for them to ensure that the track record that they develop is as modest as possible so that they have the lowest possible figure for which to bid?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that will be the case. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that managers will set out deliberately to run a poor service in order to show that they can improve the service, in that case they will prepare their bids, there will be other bids and they will be compared with the British Rail situation. If all the bids are better than the track record, clearly, the bid that is accepted will improve the situation.
In any case, everyone who is bidding—whether it is a management-employee buy-out or someone else—will do so on the basis of the same known details of the track record. There will be no favourable position in that respect in terms of information for management-employee buy-outs as compared with any other bidder. Therefore, in that sense, it does not matter because everyone will have the same basis of comparison on the track record.

Mr. Harvey: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that. Is he telling us that the track record is the bid? Surely, at the point at which the bid is submitted, the track record is historic and the bid that is being made by the team is some sort of projection of the future. It may be that, having achieved a perfectly modest record in the period running up to the bid's being made, the team will none the less have a much more imaginative and adventurous business plan to submit. The projection of the future would be compared with bids from the private sector, and the figure that they submit would be based on that. However, the track record could be perfectly modest.

Mr. MacGregor: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would know this, because it has already been debated at great length. The track record of the shadow franchise will not be the bid—it will be the basis on which bids are prepared. Obviously, that will be important for every bidder. The bids will be considered by the franchising director—he will compare the different bids. If the bids are an improvement on the track record, clearly, that will be a factor that he will take into account. That is also something which we will welcome, because, in the competition for franchises, we will be looking for an improvement on the historic record.
I believe that the real issue is the other way round. I understand from discussions that we have had that a number of management-employee buy-outs are aware of the potential for increasing revenue, making savings and improving efficiency. They will submit a bid that will be a good deal better than the track record for different reasons, not the reasons given by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey).
The Government have always said that if the franchising director is not satisfied with any of the bids, for whatever reason, and he feels that British Rail's track record while operating a shadow franchise gives better value for money, he will not grant any of the bids and British Rail will continue to operate as it has done. I hope that that makes the position clear.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It does not.

Mr. MacGregor: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not understand, but he has not been following it.
All the indications that we have had since the Lords amendment was incorporated in the Bill suggest that our concerns were and are justified. Potential bidders, including bidders for management-employee buy-outs, have made it clear that they would be deterred from bidding if BR were given complete freedom to bid for franchises. I know that my hon. Friends agree with those concerns.
The Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 31 resolves those difficulties. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed). He has taken a close interest in these matters throughout and approached them in a constructive spirit, as have other of my hon. Friends. We have achieved a satisfactory outcome, which meets his concerns and those that the Government have always expressed. I regret that my hon. Friend cannot be here today owing to illness, but I hope that we will see him back shortly.
The Government amendment preserves the wording of amendment No. 31, and the Government accept that BR should be eligible to be a franchisee. We are, of course,


asking the House to reject amendment No. 31 and to replace it with the Government amendment. That is a technicality—it is a way of achieving the passage of the Government amendment—but the whole of the original measure from the House of Lords is preserved in the Government amendment.
The Government amendment puts certain confinements on BR's eligibility, and addresses the concerns that I have listed. It gives the franchising director a power to determine that BR should not be invited to bid for a particular franchise in certain circumstances. The franchising director may exclude BR from bidding, but only when he considers it desirable to do so in the interests of promoting management and employee bids or competitions for franchises, encouraging new entry into the industry or preventing or reducing market dominance in the provision of passenger railway services.
The question whether to invite BR to bid will be left to the discretion of the franchising director. He will have responsibiliy for the entire franchising process, an important part of which involves having effective competition at the franchising stage wherever possible. It is right that he should be the person to decide whether to invite BR to bid for particular franchises.

Mr. Cryer: Why? It is crackers.

Mr. MacGregor: He will do so at the pre-qualification stage, before notices to tender go out and before people have to prepare bids. That is important in order to give the certainty that was asked for by the BR source, and to prevent unnecessary expenditure on the preparation of bids on a false basis.
Subsection (9) in amendment (a) makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to give objectives, guidance and instructions to the franchising director in the exercise of his powers to determine that BR should not be invited to bid. I know that some people regard that as an important part of the amendment, because it guarantees the franchising director's independence.
The amendment does not affect BR's role in operating passenger services until they are franchised. Should the franchising director decide not to accept any of the bids in response to his invitations to tender, BR will continue to operate that particular service.
On Report on 25 May, I argued that the amendment from the other place was unnecessary because there was a fundamental basis on which other bids could be assessed—BR's operating track record. If none of the other bids was regarded as satisfactory because they did not give better value for money, BR would continue to operate that particular service.

Ms Glenda Jackson: In that instance, would the BR bid receive the same subsidy that a private franchisee would receive, or would BR still have to operate its services with its present subsidy?

Mr. MacGregor: That would be a matter for the franchising director. He would have to look at what subsidies were being bid for by the franchisees. The intention is that it would continue as before, but the issue of subsidy at that point would be a matter for the franchising director.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The Secretary of State seemed to say that if British Rail became a franchisee, it would have the same length of franchise as any other franchisee, and the appearance of another interest in a particular service would not overtake the allocation of BR's franchise for the whole of the franchise period. Is that correct?

Mr. MacGregor: That is more or less correct. It is a point which I will come on to later.
I am talking about a situation in which the franchising director decides that there are no viable bids, or no bids that give value for money. In such a situation, he would reject all the bids, and British Rail would continue to operate the service.
There is concern about the uncertainty that this might create for BR managers and staff, who will need to know where they stand in order to plan the operation of their services. For that reason, and having regard to BR's need to motivate its staff and to deliver services, I intend to include in the objectives, instructions and guidance that I will give to the franchising director a requirement that he should allow a reasonable period of time to elapse before initiating a new competition. It will be for the franchising director to decide how long that period should be. That point is covered in the second draft of the guidance to the franchising director, which is available in the Library. It is still a draft, and no doubt it will be subject to changes.
I will also incorporate in the guidance to the franchising director guidance on the assessment of bids from BR in cases in which he decides that BR should be allowed to bid. That is also contained in the draft guidance in the Library. The franchising director will have to ensure that BR's bids are assessed fairly, taking into account BR's position as the only public-sector body allowed to be a franchisee and the incumbent operator of the services to be franchised.
I will expect the franchising director to attach great weight to BR's record in providing the services in question, and to take account of the value of transferring risk from the public to the private sector. That will achieve the level playing field and the transparency.
The amendment giving the franchising director power to exclude BR from bidding will ensure that the interests of competition are properly safeguarded in the process of deciding who should be invited to bid for franchises. The guidance that I will give the franchising director will ensure that when BR does bid, its bids are properly and fairly assessed. That should reassure potential private-sector bidders that, despite BR's dominant position, there will be a level playing field.
As I have said, the amendment gives the franchising director a discretionary power to prevent BR from bidding when he considers that desirable for well-defined reasons. I cannot say how he will exercise that discretion, because the amendment also prevents me from giving him any guidance or exercising any power over his use of that discretion. In the terms of this amendment, there will be cases where BR will be given the opportunity to bid, although it will be for BR to decide whether to do so.
The Lords amendment makes a material change, even with the amendments that I propose. It will mean that a BR franchise will run for the period of the franchise, as distinct from the BR franchisee's being the residuary operator where there is no successful bidder. I hope that answers the


hon. Gentleman's question. We intend to respond to the marketplace and the depth of the bids, and therefore the length of the franchises will differ.
Clause 106 provides that it shall be the principal objective of the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers in clauses 77 to 90 of the Bill, to secure
as soon as … is reasonably practicable the result that the function of providing railway services in Great Britain is performed by private sector operators.
That objective, as has been clear from the outset, applies to all railway services, including Railtrack, BR Railfreight, BR franchises and other BR-owned activities, including infrastructure companies, but the objective applies only as soon as is reasonably practicable and it is qualified by a wide range of other factors in subsection (2) to which the Secretary of State is required to have regard. Those include maintaining efficiency, economy and safety of operation in the provision of railway services and securing that any disposal takes place on favourable financial terms.
I could have said more about things that were said yesterday, but, to ensure that we get on with debating the amendment, which I know is of great interest to the House, I shall forbear from doing so. I shall simply conclude by saying that Lord Peyton's original amendment would have created chaos and confusion in BR and among management buy-outs and would have discouraged competition for franchises, which will secure better deals for passengers, taxpayers and employees.
Our amendment strikes a proper balance between allowing BR to be a franchisee where that is appropriate, and ensuring that BR's dominant position does not prevent the development of private sector interest in franchised passenger services. It is workable in a way in which the House of Lords amendment in its present form would not be, and I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Mr. Wilson: It is a supreme irony for the Secretary of State for chaos and confusion, the architect of this massive, unwanted disruption of our railway network, to accuse Lord Peyton, that benign figure at the other end of the corridor, of seeking to cause chaos and confusion in British Rail with his amendment. It is an exact minor image of the truth; the Government are responsible for the chaos and the confusion that will be caused by the Bill.
This is a key series of amendments. The Lords amendment would give British Rail the right to bid. It started its life as the Adley amendment and it would be remiss not to recognise the late Member for Christchurch's view of it. Robert Adley said:
It is a bit odd to say that the only people who will not. be allowed to bid to run the trains is the only organisation in Britain that actually has any experience of running trains—namely, British Rail.
That was true when Robert Adley said it, and it is true now. The absurdity that he highlighted was gross then, it is gross now, and nothing that the Secretary of State has said tonight erodes that fundamental absurdity. What has been stitched up as a deal with Conservative Back Benchers is the Government's internal affair, but the rest of the House and the country know that it is not a compromise but a buy-off, and that it is a buy-off for an extremely low price.
Until last week, there seemed to be reasonably widespread agreement throughout the Chamber on the principle that Robert Adley enunciated, and which had carried on life as the Peyton-Marsh amendment. That

agreement has now collapsed due to the so-called Tory rebels' undignified retreat, which was as predictable as it is risible.
We are left with a contradiction. Yes, British Rail will be allowed to bid, but only if the franchise director can find no one else to bid against it. If he can, British Rail will be sent off into undignified retreat as the operator of last resort.
That is not fair competition; it is a rigged perversion of competition. It is deeply contemptuous of British Rail, its managers and its work force. British Rail will be left as the provider of last resort when no one else wants to run a service. The Minister, when it suits him, admits that, for a long time to come, a large part of the British rail network will remain in the hands of British Rail, but it will be in the hands of British Rail under the conditions which the amendment to the amendment seeks to impose, in which British Rail has been categorised as the provider of last resort, in the full knowledge that the opinion of the Government is that, if it can be got rid of, it will be got rid of.
I recognise a small advance in that. I have no doubt that, when the Government set out on this course, they intended to abolish British Rail altogether and to leave it running no trains at all. They have been on a collision course with reality because of the modicum of private sector interest that exists and also the massive cost in subsidy, which we now know a little more about, that will be needed if private operators are to be interested. They recognise now that British Rail will not go away and that it will still have a usefulness, but in a role which no other party and no other Government would dream of according the state railway company. We should be investing in and developing British Rail so that it gives us a railway to be proud of, integrated within the public sector, as exists in other continental countries.
What the Secretary of State is doing in this amendment is deeply contemptuous not only of British Rail but also of the British taxpayer. The Secretary of State is saying that, even if British Rail is the most effective potential bidder—in fact, especially if British Rail is the most effective potential bidder against a private interest—it will be excluded from competing in order to clear the way for that private bidder. There will be no competition.

Mr. MacGregor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but it is my understanding that, where that is likely to exist, British Rail will be disqualified from bidding. Irrespective of how little subsidy British Rail seeks to operate a particular franchise, if a private operator who might be asking for a great deal more subsidy is available, British Rail will be excluded and the money will go to the private operator. That is why we begin to realise that a huge increase in subsidy will be required to hold the network together.
The figures that we discussed the other day did not take account of train operators' profit. They envisaged the daft circular movement of everyone paying everyone else profit—the economic charges, plus 8 per cent. return. The figures did not take account of the train operators' profits. It is at that point, when the private operators are brought into that circle, if they ever exist, that the cost of subsidy,


if the existing network is to be maintained, will go through the roof, even beyond the £2 billion a year which is being discussed now.
If British Rail were allowed to bid for every franchise, and came in as the lowest tenderer in every franchise, the country would ask why British Rail should not operate every franchise, because in aggregate the cost to the taxpayer would be massively less than the alternative, which is to fragment the railway, to cosset the private sector and, in each of those franchises where there is an interest, to pay the operators more in order to operate the services.
The Secretary of State, in defence of that point, argues against the concept of cross-subsidy. Cross-subsidy is a good idea; we owe an awful lot of our public services to it. In arguing against cross-subsidy in order to disqualify British Rail from bidding, the Secretary of State gives the show away. If British Rail were allowed to compete for every one of those 25 train operating companies, and if it were able to win every one of those franchises, obviously it would not be on the basis of cross-subsidy because British Rail would have had to make the appropriate bid in each and every case. Cross-subsidy enters the argument only when one is dealing with two or three of those franchises, not when one is dealing with all of them.
If there were any logic in what the Secretary of State is doing, and if there were any interest in giving the taxpayer the best deal, it would be put to the test: British Rail would be allowed to bid for every one of those franchises. The Secretary of State understands and fears above all that British Rail would probably win all, or nearly all, the franchises, which would be the best deal for the British taxpayer.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman totally ignores two points: first, as I made clear, the franchises will not all go out at one and the same time, but will be staggered substantially; and secondly that the franchising director will know the operating track record of British Rail during the period beforehand as a separate business—the shadow franchise, in other words. He will therefore have a benchmark, a comparison, with which to compare the bids, and if he does not think that he is getting value for money for the bids, he will not grant them.

Mr. Wilson: The point about staggering is irrelevant; in fact, it supports my case, because, if the Government's policy is pursued, ultimately all the lines would go out to franchise. Eventually, cross-subsidising would catch up with British Rail, because it would not be able to bid effectively for the later franchises. It is not true—British Rail would win the franchises not by cross-subsidising but because, as Robert Adley said, it is the only organisation in Britain with any experience of running the railways.
I am sorry, but what was the Secretary of State's second point?

Mr. MacGregor: The franchising director will always know British Rail's track record of operating as the shadow franchise. He will be able to make that comparison, and, if he does not think that the bidders offer value for money, he will not award them the contract, so the shadow franchise will be converted into British Rail operating the franchise.
Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the £2 billion, and therefore about subsidies. He has completely misunderstood the basis for that figure. It comes from a report which is only a working document and which I have never seen. There are many models, and it is ridiculous to place such weight on that one. His argument about subsidy and value for money is undermined by the very process that the franchising director will go through.

Mr. Wilson: I certainly understood, from his reaction on television, that the Secretary of State had never seen the document in question. It was produced at the highest level by his officials and spells out the cost of subsidy during the next year. I have no doubt that, now that the document has come out, some formula will be found for disguising the figures, but essentially it spells out in great detail that more taxpayers' money will be needed in the system to make the thing work. That is the lesson to be learned from the document, and it is also common sense if anyone looks at this legislation.

Mr. MacGregor: Let me make it quite clear that I did not know about the report when I was confronted with it on television on Sunday, because there are a large number of documents from working groups at various levels. Naturally, one asks for different models of the way in which one can achieve a more commercial basis for the system. I think that that report was the 79th document from that working group. The hon. Gentleman is creating a great myth on the basis of very little, as he so often does.

Mr. Wilson: Frankly, if I were the Secretary of State I would think that some questions needed to be asked when my Department produced a document that concluded that "the central Government grant requirement would total about £2 billion in 1994–95, assuming an 8 per cent. return for Railtrack", if the officials had got it wrong to the nearest billion, irrespective of the level at which the report was prepared. If he likes, he can tell us the level of the document and whether that statement is wrong. It is not my statement, however—it comes from his Department, which says that it will cost £2 billion next year to make this show operate, without running a single extra train or carrying a single extra passenger.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, we will bow to experience.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood. If I remember correctly, I think that the report says, "by way of illustration". It is a model. The fact is that we are studying various models. That document was illustrating one way in which certain factors, which have all yet to be decided, could be worked through in the system. It is wrong to make any deductions from it about the level of subsidy next year.
The hon. Gentleman, among others, has made all sorts of suggestions on previous occasions about Network SouthEast fare increases. I have always said that we should wait until the announcement. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to do so, rather than building his position on a working document when many other such documents are being worked through.

Mr. Wilson: We need not prolong this argument. As the Secretary of State says, it will all come out in the wash. I am surprised, however, that he should build his case on fare increases. What sort of Government do laps of honour


when fare increases are restricted to four or five times the rate of inflation, after Government intervention to hold them down? I am talking about Network SouthEast and the 8 or 9 per cent. increase in the travelcard. I do not regard that as a great triumph, and that increase was after intervention. Suppressing such increases would have to be paid for one way or another. British Rail has been left with that problem.
We have wandered off the point slightly. Let me return to the subject of ghost bids, to which I think the Secretary of State referred. We are invited to believe that the franchise director will consider British Rail's operations, once the vast superstructure for privatisation has been set up, and will work out what it costs British Rail to run each franchise area. He will then say that, if the private sector cannot do it for less, there will not even be a competition and British Rail will carry on. Is that probable? Is some guy appointed by the Secretary of State going to study BR's costs and call the whole thing off because, having looked at it objectively, he has decided that there is no way that the private sector could do it more cheaply? I do not believe it. The Secretary of State does not believe it. It is a total fiction to parade to the House.
The Secretary of State's political direction to the franchise director will be that he should get some franchises going this side of the next general election, but only the safe ones—the ones at which money can be thrown and which will cause the Government no political embarrassment. I do not think that they exist; we are beginning to see that from the Gatwick express, which is supposed to be the easiest of them all.
Political direction will occur at every stage. The franchise director will be told what to franchise, to cut out British Rail and to skew subsidy in the early years towards private operation, to give the Secretary of State the sort of political cover that he obviously so much requires.
I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak and I think that Conservative Members have some explaining to do, so I do not want to take too long on the subject, but the myth of management buy-out must be challenged whenever it occurs. The Secretary of State may be a magician but he is not entitled to set himself up as a ventriloquist, to speak for people who are not allowed to speak for themselves, and to misrepresent them. That is a disgrace.
I do not know what precise proportion of BR's management are interested in buy-outs, but I know that, according to the only survey of opinion undertaken, 92 per cent. of senior railway managers are opposed to rail privatisation. It may be a little more, or a little less, but there is not one shred of evidence from which the Secretary of State can adduce, or even try to adduce, that a majority or even a substantial body of railway managers are positively in favour of rail privatisation and want to be involved in buy-outs.
Ninety-two per cent. of rail managers replying to the survey were opposed to privatisation; 77 per cent. were in favour of British Rail retaining the ability to bid for franchises. Seventy-seven per cent. of managers are still in favour of the very amendment that we are discussing. Tory Back Benchers—to whom the railway managers appealed—will betray them on that amendment.
Let it not be said that the amendment has been tabled in the name of railway managers, because it is not true. The Government are looking for a minority of railway managers who, from zeal or fears for their jobs and

prospects, will become involved in the buy-outs. It is a disgrace to misrepresent railway managers by suggesting that they are behind the proposal. It astonishes me. No, it does not astonish me, as nothing that this lot does can astonish me. In the light of the figures, the Secretary of State glibly pretends that Government proposals are intended to support railway managers.
Railway managers may be the front men—we discussed last night how they might be used by private sector interests as a way in. A handful of managers may be involved, but how long will they remain involved? I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister attend conferences on rail privatisation, as I do—a great new industry has been created. I am sure that they are as familiar as I am with the advice given by financial interests to potential management buy-outs. I am sure that they are also as familiar with the term "exiting", which is used at such conferences, when railway managers are told, "Yes, get in there, make your money and then exit within three to five years. Sell on to the full private sector." That is the strategy urged on railway managers by the financial backers and the interested parties who will eventually take over those companies.
The idea that there is widespread enthusiasm among railway managers to make it their life's work to run private railways is false. The Minister knows what happened in other industries. Let us consider what happened to the bus industry where buy-outs occurred—within a few years, financial pressures and the anxiety to make a fast buck led to companies being sold on. I make no distinction between management buy-outs and full privatisation, because they are ultimately exactly the same. The only substantial difference in most cases is that a small number of pockets are well lined. That provides a heavy incentive for managers to become involved initially.
The extraordinary tribute to managers' commitment to the public railway can be seen in the figures. In spite of the bribe, 91 per cent. of railway managers are opposed to the suggestion. The Secretary of State said that there was
not a limitless supply of experienced managers".
He has got something right. Of course there is not a limitless supply; in fact, there is a distinctly limited supply.
What will happen while the wonderful management buy-outs bids are being prepared? We understand that managers involved in the bids will have to separate themselves from British Rail while the bids are put together for a period of six months, or perhaps even 12 months—[Interruption.] The Minister can correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Freeman: Later.

Mr. Wilson: Who will run the railway from the moment that the bids are put together? If the bids do not succeed—there is no guarantee that they will—what will happen to the railway managers who have separated themselves from British Rail in order to put their bids together? Will they return to Dust the people who have run the public railway while they have been away putting together their bids? The scheme is a recipe for conflict and division, and will sap morale. Some people will be seen to be trying to feather their own nests, while others will be left with the job of running the public railway. That is what the Government are doing to the railways, and it is already having a huge effect on the morale of those who work in that industry.
The Secretary of State is right to say that there is not a limitless supply of experienced managers. Where will those private interested parties, who are supposed to be waiting in the wings, find the supply of railway managers to run the industry? When bus companies and other interests enter the market, they may want to recruit from the existing pool of railway managers, but at that stage not even the Secretary of State will be able to dragoon railway managers to work for them. At present, there is a large haemorrhage of experienced railway managers because they despise what is being done to their industry. That haemorrhage will increase.
The Secretary of State must bear in mind the fact that there will not be a limitless supply of experienced managers. He will leave us with a railway from which many of the most experienced people have gone. The inevitable corollary of that is that the running of the railway will be left in the hands of inexperienced people, which will have serious implications.
I am curious about the line that market dominance will exclude British Rail from bids. The Government are in the process of setting up private monopolies throughout the country. No matter which company wins the franchise, it will have a monopoly—whether it be British Rail or any other company. If only one operator runs a franchise—which will be the reality for a long time, even under the Government's scheme—that operator has market dominance. To say that British Rail cannot bid because to do so would give it market dominance is nonsense. If the Government have an explanation, I will be interested to hear it.
7.45 pm
I question whether fixing the scheme against British Rail and talking up management buy-outs is legal under European law. That issue was authoritatively raised in the House of Lords by Lord Clinton-Davis. In our contacts with the European Commission, we have been advised that it would certainly want to consider that issue. The notion that competition can be twisted to push one potential operator and discount another is ridiculous. Perhaps that could be done in the good old days of market rigging, but there is now European law to be taken into account. The words of Lord Clinton-Davis in the House of Lords will be actively pursued by the Labour party, which wants answers to various questions.
The subject should be of interest to my friends and colleagues from Ulster, who were present earlier. The Government may try to tell them that the Bill contains nothing relevant to Northern Ireland. We know that emissaries were sent to try to buy their votes a few weeks ago. There is a consultants' report on the future of Northern Ireland Railways. Despite several parliamentary questions, the Government have refused to publish that report. If they go ahead with the Bill, there is every reason to believe that Northern Ireland Railways would be next in line, as well as any other bits and pieces of railways around the country. The precedent of not allowing the operator to bid would presumably apply in each of those cases. The implications for Northern Ireland do not have to be spelled out.
The scheme is not a compromise; it is not an effort to satisfy the reasonable demand to give British Rail the right to bid. It is a fix against British Rail and cossets the private sector, which may turn out not to exist. There are minimal signs of genuine private sector interest. British Rail will

continue to operate the great majority of services in this country. After a change of Government, British Rail will once again operate all the services in this country. In the meantime, what damage will be done to the morale and fabric of British Rail? The Government's performance over the issue, particularly the amendment, has been tawdry. They may have bought off the Tory rebels, but not opinion in the country.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: If the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was meant to be a short speech that left lots of time for colleagues on both sides of the House to make their own contributions, I am glad that we were not blessed with a long speech from the hon. Member.
I am extremely glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it gives me the opportunity to put my oar into the debate not just only on my behalf, but on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) who, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, is unfortunately extremely unwell and unable to be with us today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and I are grateful to my right hon. Friend for seeking to address the concerns that a number of us have expressed. Our worries relate to ensuring the fundamental direction of the Bill and what it is meant to do. The Bill is intended to improve the service offered to customers by railways and to offer value for money both to passengers and to taxpayers.
There has been much press and public comment on the subject of Lords amendment No. 31, the so-called Peyton amendment, to allow the British Railways Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the board to become a franchisee. Since the amendment of Lord Peyton—no shrinking violet—was accepted in another place, a number of colleagues and I have argued in favour of the amendment to improve the denationalisation Bill.
I am delighted and grateful that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport have accepted that principle and tabled a Government amendment on the issue, in the same positive way as they have reacted to other suggestions that we have made over recent weeks and months.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, it is essential to have a level playing field for all potential franchisees, be they from the private sector, management-employee buy-outs or the British Railways Board. British Rail managers with whom I and my hon. Friends have spoken, including those employees who wish to mount management-employee buy-outs, have stressed that they want only a level playing field, not a built-in advantage. They merely want to be able to compete for the franchise equally and fairly. They did not want the Peyton amendment overturned.
I understand the managers' concern. I believe that anyone with any business experience would understand their concern, because railway franchises will inevitably be a risky business. The companies will employ staff and have contracts perhaps for only five or seven years, although I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend state on television last weekend that the contracts could go up to 15 years or even more.
The companies will not own many assets. The trains will be leased and the track, signalling and stations will be owned by Railtrack or by franchisees for those stations. They will avoid much capital debt, but will lack also the


financial security that those assets would otherwise bring. Their business will be largely specified by the franchising director, heavily regulated and yet subject to the fierce competition of car, coach and air, which British Rail faces now, and which any rail operator will face in the future. As demand for rail travel rises or falls in line with the economy, even when business is bad the operator will still have to meet the obligations given to the franchising director when the original bid was made, so of course new operators need the sort of encouragement that my right hon. Friend proposes in his amendment.
I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome the view of potential management-employee buy-outs that they merely want a level playing field. It demonstrates that they are already embracing the free market principles of fair and equal competition. That was referred to at length during our debate on the guillotine motion this afternoon. They understand that in that way the railway will change for the better and will offer a better service and, crucially, better value for money.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured me that those are his objectives, too; and I believe him when he says that those are the objectives behind the amendment that stands in his name. I welcome those assurances and the stands that he has taken.
I much regret the comments made by Opposition Members and their supporters outside the House who are seeking to undermine and rubbish the Government's proposals with rumours and innuendo worthy of a Machiavelli, which are thereby causing a lot of quite unnecessary worry among present rail users and present rail pensioners. That was the context in which I made some comments earlier this afternoon.
The Bill is complex. I want to try to help Opposition Members and perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by inviting him to take this opportunity to give the House once again the assurances that he has given me and my hon. Friends. The first concerns a small point that was raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) towards the end of the debate on the guillotine motion. It is to do with the future right of British Rail's museums to the artefacts, free and clear of any cost in the future, as it has been given that right in the past. That matter has been raised before in the Chamber.
I had the opportunity of raising the matter in the last few words of the last speech before my right hon. Friend summed up on Third Reading. It has been touched on in the House of Lords and I believe that reassurances can be given—I hope that reassurances can be given—even though it has not been written into the Bill. Whether it becomes the responsibility of the franchising director in a similar way to that in which he becomes responsible for stations that are franchised individually, or some other responsibility, I believe that we should have some reassurance as to the present rights of that magnificent British Rail museum.
Returning specifically to the amendments, which I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will want me to do, paragraph (4) of Government amendment (a) permits—I emphasise the word "permits"—the franchising director in certain circumstances to determine that neither the British Railways Board, nor a wholly owned subsidiary, shall be allowed to bid for a franchise.
There is no requirement on the franchising director to do that. He can act only under the specific circumstances set out in the amendment. As my right hon. Friend has told

us, those circumstances are designed to ensure a level playing field. He said that in his opening words and I believe that he should say it again when he sums up. He should go on to say that provision of quality of service and value for money are indeed the overwhelming reasons why a particular franchise will be granted.
I understand it to be the Government's intention that the franchising director would exercise those powers to that end and to no other. Were that not to be the case, I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee would soon be examining the activities of the franchising director. I hope that my right hon. Friend will therefore confirm to the House that that will be the case and that the franchising director as accounting officer will be required to come before the Public Accounts Committee to justify his actions in terms of seeking the maximum value for the public money for which he is accountable.

Mr. David Nicholson: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend has said in that regard. Does he agree that decisions by the franchising director, which might be controversial, might be open to judicial review?

Mr. Rathbone: I agree with that and I will come to that point in just a few moments.
I particularly welcome the requirement on the franchising director to promote competition for franchises. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm to the House that, in most cases, that will require the inclusion of British Rail in the bidding process to promote competition and to provide the benchmark against which new entrants to the Rail industry will and can be judged.
I must tell the House, however, that I was concerned about the reference in the amendment to
preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons".
That is a highly judgmental factor and one which, if abused, could give the franchising director carte blanche to buy bids by the British Railways board willy-nilly. [Interruption.] If hon. Members on the Opposition Benches would stay comfortably quiet, I should be most grateful.
It seems to me that, in the absence of open access competition, every franchise operator will be a monopoly provider of rail services within his area and therefore dominant, except in a limit number of cases such as Gatwick Express. In my constituency of Lewes, the local franchisee is certainly likely to be the only operator.
I have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that it is not his intention to use that provision universally to bar British Rail from bidding. It is difficult to understand how paragraph (5)(d) of his amendment will operate. I hope that he will be able to give the House an indication of what is meant by the word "dominance".
I was considerably reassured by a letter that I have received from Sir Bob Reid in answer to questions that I put to him. He indicates a proper approach to that sensitive issue. It is clear that British Rail will be prepared to submit to proper scrutiny of any of its bids; that it will do so in co-operation with the Government; and that it accepts as a minimum requirement a robust accountancy system to prevent subsidy leakage. That is being built into the restructuring which is already in hand.
A crucial part of the Government's amendments is the requirement for the franchising director to publish his decisions. That will allow them—here I come to the point


raised by my hon. Friend—to be tested in court if necessary by way of application for judicial review. As my right hon. Friend has told me, that is a vital safeguard if the franchising director is to be given the power to bar British Rail from bidding.
I am advised, however, that it would be difficult for aggrieved bidders successfully to petition for leave for judicial review if the franchising director has not given the reasons for his decision. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to give the House some comfort on that point. He may be unwilling to include such a requirement on the face of the Bill, but I hope that he will be able to give the House an assurance that the franchising director will give reasons for his decisions when he takes them, and not just in his annual report.
I have one further concern relating to those cases where, despite the franchising director seeking bids, he is unable to appoint a suitable franchisee and British Rail remains the operator. In those cases, it is my view, and the view of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that such an arrangement should be in force for the franchise period.
8 pm
In his draft objectives for the franchising director my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recognised the importance of the effect on morale and the need for a period of stability. But those draft objectives refer only to a reasonable period of time before seeking potential franchisees again and, if I heard him correctly, my right hon. Friend used exactly the same phraseology in his opening speech today.
My concern is that those continuing the running of difficult services or taking over unpopular franchises should be rewarded with a degree of stability. As a result of the changes that my right hon. Friend has agreed to the Bill, British Rail will be long-term operators and not just caretakers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure me and the House that the final version of his objectives for the franchising director will be more specific on that point and establish that such continuing British Rail operations will be at least for the length of the franchise period on offer.
Perhaps the most important feature of my right hon. Friend's amendment, on which I particularly congratulate him, is subsection (8) where he removes any question of his being able to direct the franchising director in these matters. If, therefore, the franchising director is to bar British Rail from bidding, the decision will be his and his alone after consultation with the regulator and the British Railways Board.
However, I have heard it said that that subsection prevents the Secretary of State from directing the franchise director only in that specific context, a point which I believe my right hon. Friend also made in his opening speech today. It has been alleged by others that the Secretary of State could use other powers of direction within the Bill effectively to ensure that British Rail would not be awarded a franchise if any other bids were made.
The argument runs that the Secretary of State could direct that another bid be awarded the franchise. It has been argued that the amendment to clause 4, which was successfully moved in another place by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, the Minister for Aviation and

Shipping, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to direct the franchising director to accept MEBO bids above all others.
I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that that is not his intention, but, if he will excuse me, Secretaries of State tend to come and go, and nowhere more frequently than in the Department of Transport. I am sure, therefore, that the House would welcome some reassurance that the powers contained in the Bill should not be interpreted in that way.
In that context also, I remain concerned that the franchising director must submit to the Secretary of State for approval any proposal to offer vertically integrated franchises wherever those seem appropriate even though any such proposal can be made only with Railtrack's agreement. Therefore, I hope that the final objectives will delete that requirement as well as clarifying the previous requirement to which I have referred.
I return briefly to the crucial issue with which I started—that the Bill and my right hon. Friend's amendment have the sole intention of achieving value for money and quality of service through fair and equal competition between all those who bid for franchises, so that the best future operator wins each of the franchises, so that in turn much needed increased investment is made to improve services, particularly in such areas as the Kent coast line serving the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the south coast central franchise area and the Sussex coast services which serve my constituents.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that and give the assurances that I invited him to state, and I am confident that those assurances from my right hon. Friend will enable my right hon. Friends to join me in supporting the Government amendment.

Mr. Keith Hill: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) did the House a service, about which the Government will not be unduly perturbed, when he highlighted a central contradiction in the Government's amendment in his reference to subsection (5)(d). This will not be an open access railway. In granting franchises, the franchising director will inevitably be conferring not merely dominance in a particular railway but a monopoly in the railway. When proposals were put forward for the deregulation of the buses, it was precisely because the Government were worried about the potential abuse by franchisees that they rejected the concept of franchises in connection with buses.
On many occasions in the Select Committee on Transport and the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, we have drawn attention to documentation published in the mid-1980s which demonstrated the anxieties of departmental officials that the franchisee would capture the franchiser. The argument is that, in due course, railway passengers will pay the penalty for the situation that the Government are establishing.
However, that is not the main burden of my remarks this evening. Initially at least, I wish to pursue a line of questioning raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) about the compatibility of the Government's amendments in relation to our obligations under the treaty of Rome.
The Secretary of State, who has just left his place, will doubtless be aware that those matters were raised by my noble Friend Lord Clinton-Davies, himself a former Commissioner, which adds authority to the reservations


that he expressed in another place on this matter. Even the most sympathetic perusal of the record reveals that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping in the other place was unable to supply anything approaching an adequate response to the issues raised by my noble Friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
There is no doubt that the Government's amendments confer a privileged position to management-employee bids for franchises. There can he no other interpretation of the words:
for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest".
Those words confer rather more than a level playing field to the advantage of MEBOs in these approaching bids.
However, there are potential objections to the Government's proposals under three heads of European Community legislation. Article 7 of the treaty states:
Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
It is at least arguable that the present provisions put forward by the Government implicitly discriminate in favour of nationality. It is certainly an argument that merits a response.
Article 85 of the treaty defines as having the effect of prevention, restriction or distortion or competition within the Common Market, and therefore in contravention of the treaty, agreements, decisions and concerted practices which
apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage".
It is certainly arguable that another potential franchisee could take exception to the preference offered to a MEBO and it is hardly satisfactory for the Government to reply, as did the noble Earl of Caithness, that the Government would seek an exemption under article 85, paragraph 3. That power might be sought by the Government, but do they have any grounds to believe that it is likely to be granted? In other words, are there grounds to believe that the provision is compatible with the treaty?
I draw the Minister's attention to article 90 of the treaty, which states:
In the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty.
That relates in particular to the rules provided for in article 7, which I have quoted, and in articles 85 to 94 to which I have referred.
The Government amendments place MEBOs in a privileged position and that privilege will be enshrined in statute. There is no doubt that the statutory provision could be used in evidence against the interests of the MEBO. These matters should have been subject to serious consideration before the Government drew up their amendments. I wonder whether they seriously investigated the implications of the proposals in light of our treaty obligations. Did they consult the Commission? Are the Government sure that their proposals meet our treaty obligations? If they did not consult the Commission, and if they are not entirely sure that they have met the treaty obligations, is it not improper to ask the House to approve the amendments? Should not the amendments be withdrawn?
If the Government press the amendments to a vote—I suspect that they intend to do so—Conservative Members should be aware that the next Session may bring amending legislation to the Bill.
I shall turn briefly to the main thrust of the Government's proposals in the amendments. Conservative Members have expressed disquiet about the Government's earlier resistance to the amendments from Lord Peyton on British Rail's right to bid. If those hon. Members are willing to fall for the proposals, I fear that they are liable to fall for anything. It appears that Conservative Members wanted to secure a reasonable opportunity for BR to enter competitive bids to provide services. We have heard a good deal about the level playing field. The truth is that the Government are denying BR that level playing field and are saying effectively that it may compete only, if no private operator is interested in running the service.
By any standards BR is an efficient railway undertaking. There are Conservative Members who do not believe that. Why, I wonder, are those hon. Members so enthusiastic about the enlisting of the support of BR managers through the proposed MEBOs? In any comparative terms—capital investment, railway undertakings, the proportion of GDP expended upon railways—BR is an outstandingly efficient and productive railway system. Why should BR be effectively and extensively denied the right to compete for the franchises?
There is an inconsistency here with earlier Government legislation which provided for competitive tendering in local government and in the health service. The Government have always permitted the public sector to bid. After all, BR knows something about running a railway, unlike virtually every other potential franchisee in sight. Is it not true that the Government are fearful that BR would win most of the franchises? In the public sector and in local government, the public sector won three out of every four contracts and, I might add, Swedish railways have won most of their work.
8.15 pm
Is it not true that the Government are aware that there is virtually no interest in the franchises? Are not the Government seeking to exclude BR to make it easier for the pathetically few private bidders—however expensive and however inefficient they are likely to be—to enter the scene? It is beyond my comprehension that the Conservative Members who apparently were willing at an earlier stage to go out on a limb to secure a reasonable opportunity for BR to provide these services are to be bought off easily. I hope very much that those hon. Members will listen carefully to the strength of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and by other Opposition Members and that they will join us in the Lobby tonight.

Sir David Mitchell: In the original Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provided, I believe wisely, that British Rail could not bid for franchises, but that the franchise director need not accept a franchise bid and could leave BR as the operator. The Lords have amended that to permit BR to bid for franchises and my right hon. Friend has tabled an amendment which goes part of the way to meet the Lords amendment.
I regret the Lords amendment, which I believe was short-sighted and misdirected. If BR bids, the private


sector will be frightened off. There have been continual references during the debate to the need for a level playing field. I do not think that there is any way in which a level playing field can be achieved with BR as a bidder. I shall explain why I think that is the case.
BR has enormous financial clout and there will be fear by those who are invited to bid for franchises that BR will cross-subsidise. I regret to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), and that is unusual. To bid for a franchise, any bidder needs to know the cost and overheads and how to apportion and predict the movement of those overheads. Does the House, my right hon. Friend or anyone who knows BR intimately believe that there is any way in which BR knows what its costs are and can predict them? It is not organised to do that.
I do not believe, nor does anyone who knows the industry, that BR would be capable of putting forward a clean bid on a level playing field. I know that, many hon. Members know that and—more important—anyone thinking of putting forward a MEBO knows that only too well. If BR is to bid, there will be cross-subsidisation, which I as a taxpayer have every right to be fearful of. BR would be using taxpayers' money and that would be cheap and nasty; cheap for BR and nasty for the taxpayer. That would inevitably frighten off bidders from the private sector.
There are important points which my hon. Friend the Minister should not overlook when he winds up the debate. The benefit of private sector culture will be lost if BR continues to hold a franchise. One can take a photograph of the situation at any particular moment, but the situation is moving. Looking forward over the period of the franchise, there will be opportunities for innovation and for change. It is that innovation and change at which BR is so bad and at which the private sector is inevitably better. The real difficulty is that, if BR is to be compared with a private sector bid, the facts will be concealed. BR will rumble on as it has for so many years, whereas the innovative private sector bidder could bring new ideas and new ways of capturing the market and of pleasing the customer.

Mr. Keith Hill: During the hon. Gentleman's earlier incarnation as a Transport Minister, he leaped around the counties of Hereford and Worcester in pursuit of buses to pave the way for bus deregulation.
I suppose that the hon. Member would argue that we have seen the benefits of innovative creativity from bus deregulation and privatisation, which has led to a total loss of 13 million bus passenger journeys each year since its introduction.

Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that bus deregulation has been a considerable success in Worcester. In many parts of the country, innovative ideas have been introduced, such as the minibus, which virtually did not exist before the Transport Act 1985 was passed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what happened, one result of bus deregulation was the introduction of a whole series of new ways of providing services which were of substantial benefit to the consumer.
Yes, there is a long-term downward trend in the number of passenger miles. That is simply a result of growth of the use of the private car, with all the convenience that it can

offer. That trend has not altered. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman's point about buses in a moment; I do not want to detain the House for too long.
We must bear in mind the serious point that if British Rail can bid, the level playing field that Members on both sides of the House believe should exist will not be provided. Management buy-outs will be stifled. No manager will bid against his employer knowing that if he loses the franchise, he will continue to be beholden to that employer for his employment. Indeed, managers will think two or three times about whether they dare to put their future employment prospects on the line, mortgage their houses and do the other things that might go with a buy-out. There is serious anxiety about whether managers and employees will dare to bid against a British Rail franchise offer.
The last reason why there will not be a level playing field is that managers will have to put up their own money, mortgage their houses and take real risk while British Rail will bid with the bottomless purse of the taxpayer. The Government amendment says that nothing should prevent British Rail or its subsidiaries from being franchisees, subject to the right of the franchise director to forbid it, if desirable, for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises, encouraging management and employee buy-outs, encouraging new entrants to railway operations in the United Kingdom and preventing market dominance by one operator. I find it difficult to live with that. I am prepared to do so and to put confidence in my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening, but the original Bill was much more sound in ensuring that genuine innovative new bids were brought into the working of railways.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) feared that large increases in subsidy would be required when franchises came in. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) spoke about buses. There is one lesson to be learned from bus deregulation. I refer to it in the narrow aspect. When socially necessary bus services were put out to tender, service after service which previously needed a substantial subsidy needed much less and, in many cases, no subsidy. That was to the astonishment of the county and metropolitan councils which had been paying the subsidy thinking that they were obtaining value for money.

Mr. Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Mitchell: Certainly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We cannot go into a long discussion about the pros and cons of buses.

Sir David Mitchell: In that case, I will not give way. I conclude by saying that some £40 million was saved by county and metropolitan councils throughout the country when they discovered to their astonishment that, by putting bus services out to competitive tender, they saved substantial amounts of subsidy. I believe that there will be considerable astonishment when it is found that the same thing applies to the railways.
I bow to your wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in not pursuing the argument about buses any further. I shall support my hon. Friend the Minister in the Lobby, but we would have done better to reject the Lords amendment and stuck to the original Bill.

Mr. Harvey: One would find it easier to believe that the Government had had a significant change of heart and were making a concession on this point if their change of heart was not so late in the day. As others have said, it came after the Government's defeat in the Lords. Their response has been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said, there is considerable doubt about its legal validity.
The argument about allowing British Rail to bid has been with us for a long time. When the White Paper was issued, long before the Bill was published, I asked from this Bench whether British Rail would be allowed to bid. The point was raised again on Second Reading, throughout the Committee proceedings, on Report and Third Reading and in the Lords, where the Government were defeated. Only after that defeat, when the Government faced the prospect of the same thing happening in the House of Commons, did the Secretary of State wave his magic wand and come up with the strange formula that we have before us.
We were told earlier that the leaked document from the Department of Transport which said that the privatisation process would double the level of public expenditure was just a model. But surely the model of allowing BR to bid with some handicap was considered earlier. If it was ruled out as invalid then, why has the option been whipped out at this late stage as the basis of the legislation which is shortly to go on to the statute book?
Allowing BR to bid is simply a device to allow Conservative Members who have threatened to rebel to walk away without loss of face. It has nothing to do with the running of the railway service or choice for passengers. Nor does it do anything to guarantee the position of the taxpayer, who has poured money into the nation's rail network for decade upon decade. The prospect of allowing British Rail to bid was the only guarantee that the service would not be taken away and dismembered by spivs who would come in briefly to run a railway service, find that they could not, bale out and leave the mess behind them.
The suggestion that risk is being transferred from the public to the private sector and that some value should be put on that gives the game away. I wonder whether it is true. If the risk that will be taken by the private sector will not be bailed out by the taxpayer when the crunch comes, the fears that have been voiced by Members of Parliament and people elsewhere that services will close will be realised. If there is a risk transfer, who will pick up that risk?
At this point we should be discussing the Government's rail policy for the future. A proper policy would seek to avoid the doubling of road use by 2025. A sensible policy might reasonably seek to double use of the railways by the end of the decade. People want to use the railways more. They are put off by the ridiculously. high fares that they have to pay. The Bill will make that worse. We shall see a net transfer of not only freight but passenger traffic away from rail back on to the roads.
Ministers are fond of saying that, if the amount of freight carried on the rail doubled, it would reduce road traffic by only 5 per cent. That is false, because it ignores the distance of the journeys involved. If the railway doubled its share of the 200 km-plus market, it would reduce long-distance lorry freight by 50 per cent. That would be a popular move. It would be a great deal more

popular than building a motorway from Felixstowe to south Wales and the south-west—a proposal that is coming on to the agenda.
The Bill is not about safeguarding the taxpayer or improving choice for the passenger. It is not about facing up to the real crisis of under-investment in the railways or exploring new ways of doing something about it. The game has been given away during the debate. We have heard that the Bill is about cutting public subsidy. I believe that it is about continuing to pursue the Thatcherite dogma of the 1980s and convincing the right of the party that the candle burns on, the policy still exists and the Government are true to the faith.
The Government amendment is ridiculous. It says that BR can bid, but that in any circumstance that any sane man can think of, the bid is to be disregarded. There are four reasons why it can be disregarded. One is to feather-bed management buy-outs, which will be the only real prospective bidders. The second is to feather-bed private sector buyers. There is no sign of any of them. The third is competition, although by the time competition has been skewed twice, one has to query whether it is worthy of the name competition.
The fourth reason why the bid can be disregarded is to prevent anyone from having a dominant position in the market. British Rail has 100 per cent. of market at the moment. That means that, at any given point, on any franchise that is considered, British Rail can be disregarded because it is a dominant supplier. The catch-all enables the franchising director to disregard BR's bid on any occasion for any reason that enters his mind. We need British Rail to be a strong, vibrant bidder, an on-going committed public transport provider that is going to guarantee quality to the public and to guarantee value for money to the taxpayer. We do not want BR to be an impotent bidder of last resort.
8.30 pm
The consequences of the amendment are no different to those that would have occurred before the amendment was tabled. The Government were initially saying that, if the private sector management buy-outs did not produce a worthwhile bid, BR would be left as the operator as the last resort. What sort of service is it to operate as the provider of the last resort? What sort of service will the passenger get on lines run by the operator of the last resort?
Under those circumstances, BR should be given the franchise. BR should be given a guarantee that, for a period of seven, 10, or 15 years, it will be running that service and it should have the same incentives and objectives as any other bidder or anybody else operating any part of the rail network. Damage has already been caused to morale and unity among BR employees by the work that has gone on in putting together the shadow franchises.
I wonder why, even at this late stage, the Government did not take the opportunity to save themselves from the ridiculous ideology of trying to prevent BR from bidding. Even the Evening Standard—hardly a renowned bastion of left-wing thinking—asked in an editorial in the summer, what on earth all this is for? Who is going to benefit? Will it end up with fares going up, services being reduced and a new level of bureaucracy being created just to split BR into franchises? It said that the game is not worth the


candle. The late Robert Adley summed up the Bill as the poll tax on wheels. That description and what he meant by it it will come home to roost.
I deplore the Bill for the passengers and I deplore it for the taxpayers. The only thing that prevents the Conservatives from plunging on to their own sword is the hope that the franchising director will save them from themselves and allow BR to bid.

Mr. Peter Luff: Opposition tactics over the Bill, especially in the past two days, have consisted of little more than delay, scaremongering and, most appallingly, threats. When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) described yesterday what would happen, in the unfortunate event of a future Labour Government seeking to renationalise the railway, to those managers who dared to try to provide a better service to the customer, we saw the Opposition's real enthusiasm for involving management and employees in running a better business. I was deeply disappointed with what he said.
The words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East were not surprising. We know that the Opposition want to kill the Bill. They are not, and never have been, interested in the consumer. Their interest is in the producer, the provider of services. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) sharing that same prejudice. I shall tell the House what the Bill is about. It is about providing new ideas, new investment and new involvement in the railway from the management and employees of the railway. That is why I was so anxious to speak on this group of amendments.
I expect significant private sector interest in the franchises to be offered by the franchising director. I think that that interest will often be expressed in partnership with management and employee teams, and very often I expect management and employee teams to take the lead in bidding for the franchises in their own right—and I welcome that. We must ensure that no potential new participants are frightened from bidding for the franchises by anything in the Bill.
I sincerely hope that the concessions that have been made by the Government in this group of amendments in an attempt to get the Bill on the statute book before the end of the Session will not have that frightening effect. I fear that there is already some evidence that managers are becoming less enthusiastic as a result of their concern at this concession. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me on a number of specific points.
The British Railways Board fought a clever campaign to try to frustrate the Bill. One senior BR representative said recently:
The board will not stand by and preside over its own suicide
Frankly, that is no concern of the House. Our concern must be for the quality of service, not the preservation of the British Railways Board. It is essential that we look carefully at the Government's new amendments to see whether they go too far, whether they will frustrate management and employee buy-outs and whether they will betray the confidence of those managers who are currently preparing bids and who believe that they can run a better railway. Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), there are many more than three managers currently preparing bids who were named in The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
Over recent months, I have spoken to a number of managers who are interested in preparing bids and they

have warned of the consequences of accepting the amendment as it stands. The concerns that I shall express are not mine, but those of railway managers who want to bid. First—

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Out of self-interest.

Mr. Luff: Their interest is not self-interest, not exclusively self-interest. Yes, they will make some money, but they will provide a better service to the passenger. That is the important point. The British Railways Board has access to money at different rates from managers or outsiders bidding for franchises. There is a real danger of unequal competition as a result of that consideration.
Secondly, the board would always have been the operator of the last resort if the franchising director declined to accept any other bid. I still worry whether that process needs even the limited double chance that it is being given by the amendments.
Thirdly, in many areas, many managers feel that the board has failed to reduce central administration adequately under the Organising for Quality initiative, landing individual managers with excessive central costs. Managers must be allowed a chance to show what they can do when they choose how much central administration to buy.
Fourthly, many outside bids could be non-compliant. They may seek greater vertical integration than the Government seem prepared to accept. A large central compliant bid from the British Railways Board would automatically rule out outside bids, thus inhibiting the evolution and development of the railway. I hope that, under the Government's new proposals for the objectives of the franchising director, that danger will be carefully monitored.
Fifthly, managers of British Rail know that they have an unsaleable brand, with 45 years of adverse associations. During that period, the railways share of the passenger transport market has declined slowly, but consistently. Under the new regime, the managers to whom I have spoken are looking for a new start for new products that can succeed. I hope that the Minister will assure me that there is nothing to stop bidders grouping together to sustain the one British Railways brand that has real value in the marketplace: the InterCity brand.
Sixthly, the Government will continue to provide the British Railways Board with money through public service obligation grants to run those parts of the railway with which it is entrusted. If the BRB is allowed to bid for franchises, there is a real danger that it will direct funds to franchise bids. That could worsen the service elsewhere on the passenger railway.
Seventhly—a point that has been made by many hon. Members and commentators—there will be a conflict of interest if managers are forced to choose between whether to work on a British Rail bid or on their own. I must welcome what the Government have done to clear the way for those bids.
It is now too late to fine-tune the plans. I hope that the amendments meet the seven specific concerns of the managers that I have expressed. I will be carefully scrutinising the activities of the franchising director to ensure that he uses his powers well to address those seven concerns. How well he does so will determine the success of the Bill, which provides an opportunity for the liberating winds of choice, competition and concentration on the


customer—something so often lacking in so many parts of the British Railways Board's activities over the years—to blow through the railway. I wish the franchising director well in that onerous task.

Mr John Gunnell: I was watching television on Sunday afternoon and saw the Secretary of State receive the news about the extra £2 billion expenditure. I have heard him say tonight that it was only the 79th paper from the working group and therefore that he is discounting figures that gave him such a shock on that programme. Will the Minister tell us whether there are to be increased costs?

Sir David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the past, British Rail has had to show an 8 per cent. return on new investment? The paper to which he referrred dealt with the consequence of the wholly new concept of having to apply an 8 per cent. return to all the old investment. That is not likely to become a practical reality, and if somebody has worked it out as one of the options in the Department, the hon. Gentleman should not put too much weight on it.

Mr. Gunnell: I am not about to put any weight on it. The Minister for Public Transport, in his discussions with passenger transport authorities, has agreed that, next year, their public service obligation grant—the money that they get through the section 20 agreement—will need to be increased by 50 per cent. to cover the extra costs of the changes that will be taking place. Therefore, he has accepted that the extra money is a result of the Bill. Sadly, because of the guillotine, we shall not be able to debate the necessary arrangements to reschedule the section 20 grants.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister or to any hon. Member to hear that PTAs wish BR to bid for every franchise in which they have an interest. They fear that, if BR becomes only a residual operator, management motivation will be lost and efficiency will drop. Over a number of years, PTAs and their executives have exerted considerable pressure on BR to improve financial and operational performance. When I was leader of a metropolitan authority, I had a number of such meetings, in which we demanded increased efficiency from British Rail. The Government have acknowledged the success of PTAs and written into the Bill provisions to continue, and perhaps strengthen, the role of PTAs and their executives.
By keeping the maximum pressure on British Rail to maintain efficient management practices and seek innovative solutions, the PTAs will be able to continue to improve local services. If they cannot continue to do so, they fear a return to escalating costs and declining standards. If there is a mixture of organisations, with a residual operation by British Rail—if that is what it becomes—it will have no long-term goals except its own extinction.
I accept that there may be bidders for franchises from management buy-outs. Another possibility is bus companies, and some major bus companies have been looking seriously at bidding, but have already decided that, as the franchises are too large for them, they will not bid. No one has yet mentioned possible bids from foreign railway operators. Will the Government be prepared to sanction bidding from such companies, which may then charge a higher price than BR to run the service? There might also be bids from non-transport companies—we do

not know of any yet—that might seek partnerships with BR teams of managers. All those possibilities do not look likely to become realities.
We have to ask the Government to consider several questions. First, why will there be no genuine competitive tendering in this privatisation? My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said that the Government have permitted other in-house groups within the public sector to set up and compete against the private sector. I would go further: I would say that the Government have encouraged that. We have seen many examples of groups that have offered services first within the public sector and then, as a result of their experience there, have put in bids and transferred to the private sector.
The Government would have benefited if they had allowed British Rail to compete. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said that he did not think that BR managers were all that good at some of the aspects of business that are necessary in a management buy-out. He said that they were not good at giving the sort of financial information that would be necessary in a bid. In that case, it would be better to allow BR to develop such expertise than simply to cut its managers free now.
We have to ask about the transfer of risk, a point that I mentioned last night. The Minister said that he did not regard the whole of the private sector bid as being covered by the transfer of risk. If BR is providing a service at £10 million a year and a private sector bidder offers to provide the service at £15 million a year, will the transfer of risk be more than the £5 million a year to make that private sector bid more economical?
8.45 pm
We have to be suspicious of the Government's amendment, because it contains no referrence to costs, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said. Given that the amendments are designed to transfer services to the private sector, why is there no clause to ensure that the transfer does not incur significant additional costs? Why is that not a limiting factor and why have the Government not put economy at the forefront of their amendments? In every other respect, it has been clear that the franchising director has to take maximum account of cost and the economy; but not in this instance. That is why the Minister, in dealing with PTAs—he has been willing to talk to them throughout the passage of the Bill—has said that the section 20 grants will have to rise by 50 per cent. to cover the increased costs of services. Those increased costs are brought about by the change in the Bill. The Minister cannot avoid answering that point.

Mr. Gary Waller: Any lingering doubts that I might have had about the Government's amendments would have been blown away by the lack of vision shown by Opposition Members. Time and again, they have ignored the key point, which was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that even where BR does not have an opportunity to make a formal bid, the franchise director will be precluded from awarding a franchise to an operator whose potential does not match the track record of BR.
The draft objectives for the franchising director state clearly, on the first page, that he must seek to protect the interests of passengers. It would be nonsense in those terms to award a franchise to an operator whose potential service would be worse. We have heard the misleading claim that


BR is a provider of last resort. The suggestion is that BR will be left with services only if no other bids are submitted for them. That is a misunderstanding of the purposes of the Bill. Sadly, that misunderstanding is spread throughout the country. We have to explain the measure better. Unreal fears have been promoted in recent months on the basis of misleading information deliberately provided from certain sources.
It seems to me that rail users have a good two-way bet. The BR shadow franchises will inevitably have to respond to commercial pressures and, whether BR or a management and employee buy-out eventually runs the service, it will be a better service—at least it will be no worse— because the franchise director will not award a franchise to someone who will provide a worse service.
Another myth is that BR will be left running a rump railway after a bout of cherry picking. Anyone who believes that clearly has not read the Bill or the "Draft objectives for the franchising director", the first page of which includes as a principal objective
through payment of support to the British Railways Board and its wholly owned subsidiaries and to franchisees, to secure an improved overall service for passengers.
I am convinced that, for a long time, services will continue to require taxpayers' support. That cannot be denied. Indeed, it is bound to be the case, as it is in all countries with railway services.
I hope that the franchising process will bring the greatest improvement to those services that need it. For various reasons, the service currently provided by BR is patchy throughout the country. We all know that certain lines desperately need improvement and the franchising process is the best way to ensure that it is directed to those services.
I welcome the fact that the Government have gone not for a big bang but a gradualist approach. As time goes by, the Bill's benefits will become clearer and clearer.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to another amendment in the Bill as "Alice in Wonderland". Surely this amendment brings us to the Mad Hatter's tea party. I clearly recall my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) tabling an amendment in Committee urging the Government to allow BR to bid for franchises. The Government's response then was a categorical no. For a variety of reasons, BR was not to be allowed to bid for franchises in the bright new world of privatised railways.
What has happened in such a comparatively short time to change the Government's attitude to the idea of British Rail bidding for franchises? Could it conceivably be that the private sector has shown no interest whatever in taking on the British Rail network? That is probably a stronger reason than the much-vaunted Conservative Back-Bench revolt. Even someone as comparatively new to the House as I am knows that Conservative Back Benchers tend to talk a good fight, but inevitably fail to deliver the knock-out punch.
The argument of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), that BR should not be allowed to bid because it was over-qualified, was absurd. I should not like to travel on a rail network run by amateurs, which is, in essence, what we are talking about.

He argued that it is unfair because BR has a bottomless pit of public money with which to provide an improved service. We have seen in the past few weeks that that is patently untrue. The Government have savagely reduced public service obligation and BR subsidies.
I asked the Secretary of State this afternoon whether the subsidy earmarked for private operators when they bid for franchises would be given to the BR service if a private franchiser failed to win a franchise. BR will be expected, come hell or high water, to keep the trains running on our national network. As usual, the Secretary of State neglected to answer.
How can the Government seriously expect to improve the use of the rail network, attracting more passengers on to it and keeping freight off the roads? As one of my hon. Friends said yesterday, when will the Government give up their love affair with the juggernaut?
How can the proposed basis for introducing this ridiculous Bill be achieved if those now running the rail network, who will be expected to get out of trouble privatised franchise operators who significantly fail to deliver the service? How are we to expand the use of our networks and attract more people onto them when the Government consistently say that BR is a fail-safe device, is not good enough to bid for new franchises, and lacks the imagination to produce better services?
I spent an entire day with the management and work force of the part of BR that runs through my constituency—the north London line. A more dedicated group of people it would be extremely hard to find. They have weathered and worn the Government's chopping and changing and their inability to define what they mean by a public network service, short or long-term franchises, or plans for British Rail. Yet the members of that management and work force are still dedicated to the idea of a public network system. They are desperate to improve their stations and only too anxious to improve their services. They have a welter of imaginative ideas which they and I believe would attract more people back to that stretch of the railway. They have wonderful ideas for integrating that piece of railway into the much wider network.
Those who significantly failed to link this country by means of the channel tunnel link should listen to those members of the BR management. But they are not interested in the idea of breaking up the existing network in which public money will do little more than line the pockets of private investors who, as we have heard time and again in the House, lack any experience in running a rail network.
Only one group of people knows how to run a network. It could run it infinitely better if only the Government would acknowledge that a railway is a national resource and infrastructure that should be funded by public and private combinations, not split up in this absurd way.

Mr. Wilson: May I ask the Minister a specific point on ghost bids? I understand that there has been a change in Government thinking and that track and rolling stock costs will not now be distributed by the franchise director to specific franchises but, instead, the franchise director will pay a lump sum to Railtrack and the leasing companies.
Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct? If so, it represents a fundamental change in the Bill, virtually abolishing the concept of transparency and the attribution of costs to particular routes within the franchise. It also


makes it impossible to make meaningful comparisons between BR's current performance and the bids being made. Has that major change in Government thinking, as yet unannounced, taken place?
We have had a full debate for the past two hours. I am pleased to see that, until the closing speeches, the allocation of speeches has gone back and forth across the Chamber.
Despite that widespread participation, the Government have truncated the debate on the spurious ground that there was procrastination in yesterday's debate. The debate would have been even better if it could have continued last night and we had been allowed more time. The Government's assertion that Opposition Members were speaking to no purpose has been discredited in the past couple of hours.
The Government's arguments on the amendments have been similarly discredited. Conservative arguments were summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who said that they asserted that British Rail was to be disqualified from bidding because it over-qualified. People who use the railways want a safe and efficient system that will cost the taxpayer as little as possible. They would prefer over-qualified people to those who are under-qualified, who are brought into the network not to improve it but to practise the dogma and prejudice that underlies the legislation.
As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) said, the grounds on which the franchising director, who will be a creature of Government, will be able to rule out British Rail are part of a catch-all clause. BR will be left as a last resort provider. We shall oppose that at every stage, and shall draw attention to what is being done, to the discrimination against British Rail and to the disadvantage that will be imposed on the taxpayer. We shall continue to oppose the amendments.

9 pm

Mr. Freeman: I shall try to be as succinct as possible, but I am sure that the House would want me to answer all points properly. I can tell the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that, for the first round of franchises, we expect that the franchising director will reach agreement with Rail track on the costs of track access for all franchises.
After that, the franchising director will ask for bids for subsidy for those lines that he proposes to franchise. Therefore, the bids will reflect not only the cost of train operation but the cost of access to the track. Of course, open access operators and the freight industry will bid directly to Railtrack. As I have said, we expect Railtrack as from yesterday to negotiate terms for access to the track. Rolling stock is a matter for the rolling stock companies.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) asked about the treaty of Rome. Obviously, the franchising director must exercise his discretion under the amendmentin line with our obligations under that treaty. The amendment does not require the franchising director to take any action in breach of those obligations.
The hon. Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) spoke about the £2 billion. My right hon. Friend and I have explained that, but I shall try to do so again. This is a model. It does not imply any additional funds for the railway system—that is to say, Railtrack, British Rail and the franchising

director. It is simply one attempt of many to estimate the external financing limit of one part of the railway system, the franchising director. That is all in the public sector. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look at many more possible solutions as to how a given sum of public money can be split between the external financing limits of those three public sector bodies.
It is not true that I have spoken about 50 per cent. The figure represents the increase in track costs to the passenger transport authorities, and I have no idea what the final increase will be. We shall provide a specific grant to the PTAs to cover the increase in costs in 1994–95. We have no desire to interfere with the level of service, and there is no reason to do so.
The Secretary of State and I are grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and for Worcester (Mr. Luff). I appreciate their support. They also want to improve the private sector's contribution to the railway, and that can be done by permitting additional investment and greater innovation. That is not a criticism of BR managers or employees. Because of the nature of a public sector monopoly, those two benefits are not properly reaped. The issue is how that is to be done.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked whether British Rail would bid. I confirm that our expectation, intention and belief is that it will bid competitively in certain circumstances. That is the purpose of my right hon. Friend's amendments. However, it will not be invited to bid in specific cases. The franchising director will decide. That is where the issue of promoting an interest in buy-outs by management-employees arises. That will encourage competition and prevent dominance. I shall try to define precisely the last of those.
There is evidence that British Rail management are seeking to prepare bids. We welcome that. I have visited many BR managers and I know that they are interested in the 25 franchises in the offing. Some of that interest will manifest itself next year and some in years to come.
The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked about value for money. The franchising director's budget is cash-limited, and he must use the money efficiently and economically. Therefore, when he compares private sector bids with BR's historic costs and makes his decision, taking account of risk transfer to accept a higher subsidy bid in the early years, he must initially justify that decision to the Public Accounts Committee. Of course, his judgments are subject to judicial review. The figures cited by the hon. Gentleman are way over the top. There may well be some differences, but they will have to be justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked seven questions, and I shall seek to answer them as succinctly as I can. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) is not here. Some of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) asked overlapped with the seven from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, and I hope that I have them correctly.
First, we did not manage to table the amendments to deal with the ability of the railway museum to acquire artefacts from the private sector. I will reply to the director of the railway museum. I give an assurance that I will have a meeting with him. It may be that we will be able to achieve the same objectives, but not via the statute. [Laughter.] There seems to be some mirth about that. It is


not an evasion at all; we intend that the museum should obtain artefacts from both the private and public sector. I do not understand what the mirth is about.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether the franchising director would operate on a level playing field. It is important that the franchising director obtains value for money. As I have already explained to the House, his judgments will have to be explained in due course to the Public Accounts Committee. There is certainly no requirement upon him to exercise that discretion in any particular fashion. He will enable BR to bid in certain cases, and he must explain any actions he takes in relation to the private sector.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked what was meant by dominance. It does not mean an absolute bar on BR bids from the beginning. My right hon. Friend and I certainly do not interpret dominance to mean that no BR bid should be allowed until it is down to 25 per cent. of all rail services in Great Britain: that is clearly absurd. Judgment will have to be used regionally and nationally, because we want to encourage private sector participation.
Fourthly, my hon. Friend asked about the publication of decisions. My hon. Friend will know that clause 67 of the print of the Bill dated 27 May states that the franchising director must publish and annual report which must be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend. We believe that is the right way to explain the decisions that have been taken.

Mr. Rathbone: It is absolutely essential that those decisions are explained in the annual report. In order to enable a judicial challenge to be made, it is unreasonable to expect a potential challenger to postpone making that challenge until the annual report becomes available, so it is important that the franchising director publishes his reasons before the annual report.

Mr. Freeman: I understand that. I am sure that the franchising director will be making announcements. I will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said, but I can give him no assurance at this stage that the franchising director will go beyond giving a account of this activities in the annual report. I understand what my hon. Friend is arguing; perhaps it is sensible to review what statement is made by the franchising director as and when he makes each decision. It is a perfectly reasonable point, and my right hon. Friend and I will reflect on it.
I was asked what was a reasonable period for BR to operate as a matter of last resort and continue to run services if it does not participate in the franchise award. We have deliberately not tried to define that, because it is not possible to do so. My right hon. Friend and I will reconsider the draft objectives which have been tabled for consideration by the House and reflect on how the language can be improved, but I do not hold out any hope that that period should specifically match the franchise period that the franchise director had in mind to offer if BR was not bidding.
I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point that we must ensure that the morale of BR does not deteriorate, and that management should be given some certaintly in continuing to run services.
Sixthly, my hon. Friend asked whether there were other means by which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can direct the franchising director in terms of accepting or rejecting British Rail as a bidder.
The answer is no, my right hon. Friend cannot use clause 5 to instruct the franchising director to use his powers to exclude BR from the bidding.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked me about vertical integration. That is not part of the Government's policy, which is why the franchising director has to refer these matters to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that that must be right, and we have set out our reasons for that.
I very much welcome the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and other hon. Friends. I hope that the assurances that I have given on these important issues will make them feel able to vote with the Government. I commend to the House both the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to disagree with the Lords amendment No. 31 and the Government amendments in lieu.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 282.

Division No. 381]
[9.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Churchill, Mr


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Ancram, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bates, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beggs, Roy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dicks, Terry


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman






Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gallie, Phil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Madel, David


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Cheryl
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moate, Sir Roger


Harris, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Nick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawksley, Warren
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Needham, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Nelson, Anthony


Hendry, Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Horam, John
Norris, Steve


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Jack, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pickles, Eric


Jenkin, Bernard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jessel, Toby
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Richards, Rod


Key, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robathan, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knapman, Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knox, Sir David
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Tom


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tredinnick, David


Soames, Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Spencer, Sir Derek
Trimble, David


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spink, Dr Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan
Waterson, Nigel


Streeter, Gary
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Sweeney, Walter
Whitney, Ray


Sykes, John
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Willetts, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thomason, Roy
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Alton, David
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Baldly, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Bayley, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyce, Jimmy
Dowd, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Enright, Derek


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Fyfe, Maria






Galloway, George
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Alice


Garrett, John
Mandelson, Peter


George, Bruce
Marek, Dr John


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Gordon, Mildred
Meacher, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Henderson, Doug
Mudie, George


Heppell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Murphy, Paul


Hinchliffe, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hood, Jimmy
Olner, William


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Parry, Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Prescott, John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Tessa
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooney, Terry


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shearman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McLeish, Henry
Snape, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry





Stevenson, George
Welsh, Andrew


Stott, Roger
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wigley, Dafydd


Straw, Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Tyler, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wright, Dr Tony


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Joan



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Watson, Mike
Mr. J. O. Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment proposed:

(a) in page 24, line 40, at end insert—

'(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (1) above shall not prevent—

(a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), or
(b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board,

from being a franchisee.
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, whenever the Franchising Director proposes to issue invitations to tender under section 23 below in respect of any particular services for the carriage of passengers by railway, he may, after consultation with the Board and the Regulator, determine that neither the Board nor any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board shall be eligible for inclusion among the persons to whom the invitations are to be issued or who may be selected as the franchisee.
(5) The Franchising Director shall not make a determination under subsection (4) above unless he considers that it is desirable to do so—

(a) for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises;
(b) for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest;
(c) for the purpose of encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry; or
(d) for the purpose of preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons in the market for the provision in Great Britain, or in a part of Great Britain, of services for the carriage of passengers by railway.

(6) The Franchising Director shall—

(a) give notice of any determination under subsection (4) above to the Board; and
(b) publish notice of the determination in such manner as he thinks fit.

(7) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to affect the matters which the Franchising Director may take into account in determining the other persons whom he invites to tender for franchise agreements or whom he selects as franchisees.
(8) No objectives, instructions or guidance shall be given under section 5 above by the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director with respect to the exercise of his functions under this section.
(9) In this section—
"competition for franchises" means competition to become franchisees under franchise agreements;
"encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry" means encouraging private sector operators who do not currently provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway to commence doing so;
"qualifying railway employees", in the case of any franchise agreement, means persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement


relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement.'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 283.

Division No. 382]
[9.27 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Aitken, Jonathan
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dunn, Bob


Ashby, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Elletson, Harold


Atkins, Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Faber, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beggs, Roy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Peter


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'lre)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)





Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bifm E'st'n)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knox, Sir David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sackville, Tom


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Legg, Barry
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stephen, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Needham, Richard
Trimble, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen






Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Wolfson, Mark



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Denham, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dewar, Donald


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Donohoe, Brian H.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Austin-Walker, John
Enright, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Etherington, Bill


Barnes, Harry
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fraser, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Galloway, George


Blair, Tony
Gapes, Mike


Blunkett, David
Garrett, John


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyce, Jimmy
Gerrard, Neil


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gordon, Mildred


Burden, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Byers, Stephen
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gunnell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hain, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike


Cartile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hutton, John


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Janner, Greville


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Johnston, Sir Russell





Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prescott, John


Jowell, Tessa
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Randall, Stuart


Khabra, Piara S.
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Redmond, Martin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Reid, Dr John


Kirkwood, Archy
Rendel, David


Leighton, Ron
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lewis, Terry
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Livingstone, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Simpson, Alan


MacIennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Madden, Max
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Alice
Soley, Clive


Mandelson, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Spellar, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tipping, Paddy


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wise, Audrey


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About 10 days ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) raised


the question why the police were no longer providing assistance to hon. Members who wished to get to a Division. Such assistance requires the police to be in Parliament square when a Division is called.
I raised this issue a few hours ago, but since then I have learnt that my hon. Friend raised it 10 days ago, but no action has been taken. I had difficulty getting to the House for the Division. Apparently, the new superintendent of police has decided that all police based in Parliament square should be removed when a Division is called and should not help hon. Members to get to the House to vote. That is in breach of our Sessional Orders—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that the debate is guillotined. I assure him that I will report the matter to Madam Speaker and ensure that it is looked at tomorrow morning.

" —(1) A franchise agreement may include provision with respect to the fares to be charged for travel by means of the franchised services.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, if it appears to the Franchising Director that the interests of persons who use, or who are likely to use, franchised services so require, he shall ensure that the franchise agreement in question contains any such provision as he may consider necessary for the purpose of securing that any fares, or any fares of a class or description, which are to be charged are, in his opinion, reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(3) Every franchise agreement shall include provision requiring the franchise operator—

(a) to participate in every approved discount fare scheme,
(b) to charge fares, in cases to which such a scheme applies, at rates which are not in excess of the levels or, as the case may be, the maximum levels set by the scheme, and
(c) otherwise to comply with the requirements of every such scheme,

if and to the extent that the franchised services are services, or services of a class or description, in relation to which the approved discount fate scheme in question applies.

(4) The discount fare schemes which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as "approved" are those which are from time to time approved for the purposes of this section by the Franchising Director.

(5) In this section—
discount fare scheme" means any scheme for enabling persons who are young, elderly or disabled to travel by railway at discounted fares, subject to compliance with such conditions (if any) as may be imposed by or under the scheme;
discounted fare" means a lower fare than the standard fare for the journey in question;
scheme" includes any agreement or arrangements.

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 13, at end insert
'and every appropriate travelcard scheme.'.

(b), in line 20, after 'scheme', insert 'Or travelcard scheme'.

(c), in line 21, after 'fare', insert 'and travelcard'.

(d), in line 32, at end insert
'"travelcard scheme" means any scheme for enabling persons to travel by railway, or by railway and other specified forms of

Mr. Steen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The crux of the issue is clear to me. It is an important issue, and I can give the hon. Gentleman full confidence that it will be looked at in detail tomorrow morning.

Amendments made: (b), in page 54, line 36, after '20' insert '21, 23'.

(c), in page 72, line 2, at end insert—

'( ) every notice of a determination under section 22(4) above;'.— [Freeman.]

Lords Amendment No. 32 agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 33, after clause 24, to insert the following new clause—Fares and approved discount fare scheme—

transport in a described geographical area, during a described period of time, subject to compliance with such conditions (if any) as may be imposed by or under the scheme.'.
and Lords amendment No. 37.

Mr. Freeman: Amendments Nos. 33 and 37 are important, and I shall be as clear and succinct as I can be in introducing them. They deal with the commitment on fares control that we gave on Report. That has resulted in the amendment, which gives the franchising director the power to ensure that franchise agreements contain provisions to ensure shat all fares are reasonable. The Government believe that the amendment fulfils the criteria that we set out during the debate.
The amendment also covers discount schemes for the young, the elderly and the disabled, and their protection under the franchise agreements.
The franchising director will have powers to safeguard travelcard schemes. My right hon. Friend has given a specific commitment in regard to London; there are powers in relation to travelcard schemes outside London, but London is what is covered so far. We believe that broadly similar provisions could apply outside, but we have made no decision about that.
I hope that the House will agree that the amendments fulfil commitments, and are to be commended.

Sir John Stanley: I should like to speak briefly to Lords amendment No. 33, with particular reference to subsection (2).
This is a significant amendment, which was not printed in the Bill at any time during its previous consideration by the House of Commons. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, it introduces for the first time a provision enabling the franchising director to ensure, in the interests of the travelling public, that fares in the franchised services remain reasonable.
It is also worth referring to the genealogy of the amendment. We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about the alleged potential implications of the proposals for fares; but the existence of this significant provision in the Bill owes nothing to the Opposition Front Bench—or, as it happens, to the Liberal Democrats. It was tabled on Report, as amendment No. 237, by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and myself. On the following day, it was accepted in principle by my right hon. Friend.
I consider the amendment significant and substantive. I highlight just two features which illustrate that. First, there is the use of the phrase "shall ensure" in relation to the franchising director. The fact that that phrase is used—rather than the phrase "may ensure"—represents an important statutory obligation. The second important feature flows from that wording. By virtue of being statutory, the obligation is clearly justiciable—which means that, ultimately, any of the new consultative committees, any transport users association and, indeed, any individual member of the travelling public will have an opportunity to take legal action against the franchising director if he fails to discharge his obligation in relation to the reasonableness of fares.
I am delighted that this important amendment has been tabled, and I hope that the House will give it warm support.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it may be the wish of the House to deal formally with Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 252, and to proceed to a debate on Lords amendment No. 253. If that is so, before I call the Minister to move formally to agree with the Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 252, I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in the Lords amendments Nos. 36, 40, 45, 56, 65, 83, 97 and 104.

Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 252 agreed to. —[Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 86

EMPLOYMENT

Lords amendment: No. 253, leave out Clause 86 and insert the following new Clause—

Assignment of employees to particular parts of undertakings.

(" .—(1) Schemes may be made—

(a) assigning such qualifying employees, or qualifying employees of such a class or description, as may be specified in the scheme to such part of their employer's undertaking as may be so specified;
(b) modifying the terms and conditions of employment of those employees; and
(c) providing for the payment of compensation to any of those employees by his employer in respect of any overall detriment incurred by the employee in consequence of any modifications made by the scheme to his terms and conditions of employment.

(2) A scheme shall be made only for the purpose of facilitating, or otherwise in contemplation of, or in connection with,—

(a) the disposal of the undertaking, or part of the undertaking, of the Board or of a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board;
(b) the transfer, by virtue of a transfer scheme, of any property, rights or liabilities—

(i) from the Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board to any such subsidiary or to a publicly owned railway company or a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director; or
(ii) from a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director to another such company;

(c) the provision of railway passenger services, or the operation of additional railway assets, under a franchise agreement, in circumstances where a previous franchise agreement relating to the provision of those services or the operation of those assets comes, or has come, to an end;
(d) the performance of any duty imposed on the Franchising Director by any provision of Part I above to secure—

(i) the provision of any railway passenger services;
(ii) the operation of any network or part of a network;
(iii) the operation of any station or light maintenance depot, or any part of a station or light maintenance depot; or

(e) the exercise of the power conferred on the Franchising Director by section 26 above-to secure the operation of any additional railway assets.

(3) The power to make a scheme shall be exercisable—

(a) by the Board, in respect of employees of the Board or of any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or
(b) by the Franchising Director, in respect of employees of any company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.

(4) Where a scheme modifies the terms and conditions of employment of any person, the person's terms and conditions of employment after the modification takes effect must overall, and taking account of the amount or value of any compensation payable to him by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above in respect of any such detriment as is there mentioned, be no less favourable to him than his terms and conditions of employment before the modification takes effect.
(5) The duty imposed on an employer by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (requirement for written statement in respect of certain changes relating to an employee's employment) shall extend to all of the modifications made by a scheme to a qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment, as if those modifications were changes required to be dealt with in a written statement under that section.


(6) If any qualifying employee whose terms and conditions of employment are modified by a scheme is aggrieved—

(a) at the provisions made by the scheme with respect to the payment of compensation, so far as applicable in his case, or
(b) at the fact that the scheme does not make any such provision,

he may make a written complaint to the maker of the scheme not later than twelve weeks after the date of issue of the written statement required by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in consequence of the modifications made by the scheme in the qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment.
(7) Any complaint under subsection (6) above shall be referred to, and determined by, such arbitrator as may be agreed by the qualifying employee and the person to whom the complaint was made or, at the request of either of them, by a panel of three arbitrators appointed by the Secretary of State and consisting of—

(a) a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employers in the railway industry;
(b) a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employees in the railway industry; and
(c) an independent chairman.

(8) A scheme may make such incidental, consequential, supplemental or transitional provision as appears necessary or expedient to the person making the scheme.
(9) A scheme may make different provision for different qualifying employees or for qualifying employees of different classes or descriptions.
(10) A scheme shall not come into force unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State or until such date as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the maker of the scheme, specify for the purpose in giving his approval.
(11) In the application of this section in relation to Scotland, any reference to an arbitrator shall be taken as a reference to an arbiter.
(12) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, for any reference to section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 there shall be substituted a reference to section 4(4) to (6B) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.
(13) In this section—

"qualifying employee", in the case of any scheme, means a person who, immediately before the coming into force of that scheme—

(a) is an employee of—

(i) the Board;
(ii) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or
(iii) a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director; and

(b) is not assigned solely to duties in that part of his employer's undertaking to which he is, or is to be, assigned by that scheme;

"scheme" means a scheme under this section;

and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.")

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Opposition do not want to move amendments (a) and (b).

Mr. Freeman: For the convenience of the House I shall make a few comments about employment arid the provisions of TUPE. Several trade unions have expressed concerns about the interpretation of this group of amendments.
I shall mention two basic points. First of all, there is no doubt that the acquired rights directive and the provisions of TUPE apply to the railway industry. That is Government amendment No. 317, and there is enshrined in the Bill a

clear reference to the application of TUPE. There is no doubt that, in a transfer of undertaking from one ownership to another, whichever undertaking it is, the provisions of TUPE apply. That protects the terms and conditions of employment.

Mr. George Stevenson: What might those conditions be at the time of transfer?

Mr. Freeman: The terms and conditions of employment under the TUPE regulations include, obviously, the pay and conditions, the hours of work and the conditions of work. They do not include pension rights. They apply throughout industry. The railways are not unique. It is not a matter for me, as a Transport Minister, to define the acquired rights directive or the provisions of TUPE, but they will apply in any change of ownership in the railway industry.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In a case in my constituency, various people were informed that, unless they agreed to transfer automatically, they would not only lose their employment but would be at considerable risk in relation to any redundancy payments. Will the Minister give us an undertaking that any railwayman or woman who is required automatically to transfer to another private undertaking will not be penalised with new contracts and new terms of employment, but will, if he or she wishes, be able to retain his or her full entitlement at that moment and for his or her continuing contract?

Mr. Freeman: I can give that assurance, because the law requires those terms and conditions of employment to transfer cleanly, without any amendment or compromise. What happens to the terms and conditions thereafter is a matter for voluntary negotiation between the employee and the employer. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I am citing the law. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that the provisions of TUPE, which apply whether it is Marks and Spencer, Unilever, ICI or the railway industry, are clear and unimpeded. The Bill does nothing about their application.
The second—and, I suspect, more important—subject of the debate is Government amendment No. 253. That is where the misunderstandings have arisen. I shall seek to allay them. Government amendment No. 253 is new clause 86. That allows British Rail or the franchising director to remove uncertainties where there is double employment in British Rail at present between different divisions of British Rail—that is to say, the individual is not wholly employed.
I cite the example of drivers who drive both the Gatwick express, which is InterCity, and trains on Network SouthEast. The driver may spend 50 per cent. of his time driving one set of trains and 50 per cent. the other. We are advised that, as the driver in that case is not wholly employed by one enterprise in British Rail, if there is a transfer to a private sector franchisee, the provisions of TUPE might not apply. That is the legal advice that is available to the Department of Transport. What clause 86 does, therefore, is to enable individual employees who are working for two distinct businesses to be assigned to one of them.
I hope that the assignment will be made with the voluntary agreement of the individuals involved and that agreements with the trade unions about the negotiating


procedures that should be followed will be honoured. Once the assignment is made, without question the provisions of TUPE will apply when the undertaking is transferred—for example, from complete ownership by British Rail to a franchising company.
New clause 86 makes it clear that, if it could be argued that an individual's terms and conditions of work had been changed by the assignment, there is a process for compensation and independent arbitration to deal with any dispute between British Rail and the individual involved. I think that that is fair, and I hope that I have cleared up any misunderstandings.

Mr. Prescott: rose—

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Prescott: There seems to be a bit of competition.
We do not wish to take a great deal of time on the amendment, but having discussed amendments nos. 6 and 31, we have skipped over important debates on passenger transport executives, competition, the disabled, codes of practice and consultative committees, to reach the 18th debate. The others were all important amendments, but due to the guillotine we have had to miss them. However, it is important to place on record the fact that we have missed them out and have begun an important debate on TUPE.
The amendment may seem to be technical—indeed, it is often introduced as a technical amendment—but its implications are considerable and complex. No doubt in the other job that I shall have to do shortly I shall have to understand the subject better than I do at present.
The subject that is causing concern has been mentioned by the Minister and arises directly from a change since the issue was first mentioned in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). Then, the Government made it clear that they intended to include in the Railways Bill—in clause 82, I believe—a statutory provision to ensure that all transfers would be covered.
In the debate, it was said that the present trade union egulations—TUPE—would still apply. However, the Minister still felt that it was important to contain the provision in the Bill. He said:
Clause 82 has been included in the Railways Bill to apply TUPE to all kinds of transfers resulting from the privatisation of BR. Certain transfers may be of undertakings forming part of BR that are not properly regarded as commercial. Other transfers may include a collection of property rights and liabilities, which would not normally be regarded as an undertaking, because, for example, they are not a going concern."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 March 1993; c. 773.]
The Minister was concerned that in some operations within British Rail, commercial and non-commercial, workers would normally be transferred from the various organisations. Reorganisation has created problems involving identifying employees with specific parts of the operation. The Minister mentioned the Gatwick operation, where some drivers use 30 per cent. of their time on the Gatwick run and are unable to work on other parts of the railway network. The problem is whether those workers should be identified with a specific company.
I think that one case was known as the Butts End case. The European Court identified cases in which people had not worked for a company long enough to qualify as full-time workers with the company. Many such examples occur when an organisation such as British Rail is split up

into different operations. Will ticket sellers be selling tickets for Regional Railways or InterCity? Who are they employed by? Unless those sellers are placed in separate ticket offices—as has recently occurred at Victoria in relation to the Gatwick service—difficulties are created.
No doubt exists about employees who are directly employed full time in a company, as any transfer from that company to another company would be covered by the regulations, but clause 82 and the proposals in the Lords amendments have caused considerable concern. The central issue involves employment rights such as conditions, redundancy rights, and even concessionary travel—another issue addressed by the Minister in Committee—which constitute an individual's property and employment rights.
I think that the Minister hopes that he can make it clear, through the amendment, that those people who may be caught between one situation and another will now be identified as working with one employee—

Mr. Freeman: Employer.

Mr. Prescott: One employer. I thank the Minister.
In the process of their changing—for whatever reason —from one company to another, an employee's conditions of employment can be changed, which is what is suggested in the amendment. Where such changes take place, compensation will be paid. In that situation, I presume that it will be paid by the taxpayer.
10 pm
There is a fear—I believe that it has some substance —in relation to people who may be transferred from one company to another in the reorganisation of the industry prior to privatisation clearly being transferred from one undertaking to another. It may well be a judgment that that undertaking—track authority, say—decides that it wants to keep only X per cent. of the employees, or wants them to go to another company. If the worker does not accept that, he would receive compensation under the Bill.
Where Gatwick drivers did not want to spend 100 per cent. of their time driving the Gatwick route, which is one of the cases at the moment where the first shadow franchise is in operation, the drivers on those trains were entitled to move anywhere in the system. However, I presume that the shadow company can now say to an employee, "You will have to work for us 100 per cent." If that employee does not want to, disagreement can be registered between the employee and employer. If the employee is not prepared to accept the new conditions of employment—as that is what they represent—he is entitled to receive compensation, to seek employment elsewhere or to go to arbitration if there is disagreement as to the extent of the compensation. Those complexities come directly out of the reorganisation and they threaten the certainties of people's employment rights.
There is another matter that causes some concern, and on which I want to question the Minister. Concern has been expressed that the Government may have the possibility of causing reorganisation and changes in conditions of employment prior to privatisation. That is an act of transfer that will not necessarily guarantee compensation. Some railway employees feel that that is the intention of the reorganisation. Will the Minister reassure us that any changes or reorganisation which take place prior to the privatisation will be covered entirely by the regulations, and guarantee employees their rights, as was intended in clause 82?
I believe that clause 82 is being removed and replaced with an amendment under TUPE which has no statutory guarantee in the Bill. The scope is being widened to cover other groups of people who would not have been covered by clause 82. Will the Minister say whether in that matter, which is highly technical but has considerable consequences for employees, he considers that shadow companies will seek to reorganise the labour force—reduce it if necessary, or get rid of workers—ready for what might be considered to be a move away from full-time to part-time labour by the new company?
Finally, does the Minister have any estimate of what the compensation is likely to cost the taxpayer? I recall one other taxpayer's guarantee in the reorganisation contained in the Dock Work Act 1989. The Government's estimate at the time was something like £20 million, but it turned out to be about £200 million—all to return the docks to another kind of casual labour, which we are beginning to see develop in the docks.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me four questions. The hon. gentleman is right to say that in Committee the law had not clearly resolved the problem of distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial undertakings that were being transferred. But we now have the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, section 33 of which resolves that issue. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that clause 137(6) of the Railways Bill now applies TUPE. It applies the new provisions in the 1993 Act and there should be no cause for any concern or ambiguity.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point on concessionary travel, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London would have said had we discussed it, and on numerous other occasions has given assurances, that we regard the concessionary travel arrangements as covered by TUPE, so they cannot be abridged. The responsibility of employers to maintain the concessionary travel arrangements is clear under the law. The franchising director has the power to enable that duty on the part of employers to become effective, and he will do that through the train companies that will operate.

Mr. Prescott: Does that mean that the employer will have to buy those concessionary passes? For example, when Sealink was privatised, there was a concessionary fare right and Sealink had to buy that right from British Rail to provide the concessionary passes to the people. If the franchising director has the power of enforcement, will it be a condition of the franchise that those concessionary passes are purchased and that, if they are not, the employees can take action against the franchisee as being in breach of the franchise agreement?

Mr. Freeman: The arrangement proposed is that the railway companies, on behalf of their employees, will make a payment to the franchising director, and that companies carrying the employees of other companies will reflect the cost of doing that in their franchise bids for subsidy. We will be happy to set that out more fully at the appropriate time, but I can assure the House that there is no intention to make any significant change. I do not foresee any change in the concessionary travel arrangements.

Mr. Wilson: The change that has been effected by the removal of clause 82 is not technical but substantive. The

main difference is that, if TUPE was positively written into the Bill, TUPE would apply—end of story. However, where TUPE is not specifically written into the Bill, every case will be considered on its merits. The basis of TUPE is that every case is different. That is what the case law shows. Every successor employer who seeks to demonstrate that TUPE does not apply will be able to turn that into a legal marathon in order to do so. Therefore, rather than TUPE having a clear-cut application in every case, it will be up to the employees to prove that TUPE applies in any specific case.

Mr. Freeman: I do not believe that that is a fair representation of the position. Clause 137 clearly shows that the provisions of TUPE shall apply in the changes that will affect the railway industry. As to how each individual is affected and how he might make claims, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. That is the process of the law. But I am certain that, because we have put the application of TUPE on the face of the Bill, that will remove any doubt.
The third question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was whether there would be any effect on national terms conditions of employment. I am happy to give him an unqualified assurance that there will be no such effect in terms of the provisions of amendment No. 253 which foreshadows the introduction of a new clause as a result of the assignment, which I hope will be voluntary, of individuals to one particular undertaking within British Rail where they work for two or more.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about shadow franchises and whether they would be a mechanism for getting rid of staff. No, this is a genuine attempt to clarify the full-time employment of individuals so that the provisions of TUPE can apply.
If there are continuing concerns on the part of the unions, to which I have already written twice and with which I have had two meetings, I should be happy to have further meetings or correspondence, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will encourage them to write to me. I hope that, with those remarks, the House will see fit to approve the Lords amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 121

PENSIONS.

Lords amendment: No. 295, in page 121, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Act shall relieve the Secretary of State of any duty imposed by section 52D(2) of the Transport Act 1980.")

Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 410 to 415, Lords amendment No. 416, Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 417.

Mr. MacGregor: There was a discussion on this issue today. Before I come to the technical aspects of the amendments, I will remind the House of the important background to what has been agreed on the subject of pensions. I will repeat the four points that both I and the Minister made earlier.
The first point is that the assets which will move from the existing British Rail scheme to the closed fund—the subject about which we are primarily talking—will be determined on an independent actuarial valuation. I repeat the point, because it is important that it is made clear to all pensioners. There is no question of the funds being siphoned off in any way other than for the purposes of the payment of pensions. The fund will be under the control of the trustees and they will have a fiduciary duty to the trust members. There is no way in which the Government would either wish or be able to purloin any of the funds. I underline that point, because that accusation has been put around the country. It is not our wish in any way, and I hope that that is explicit.
The second point is that the fund will now have the added protection of a solvency guarantee from the Government. That is a totally new position and one to which I shall refer again later. The third and fourth points, which were widely welcomed and acknowledged by my hon. Friends, are that we have given the pensioners an extremely good deal. In addition to that guarantee, they will have an inflation-linked pension. The guarantee for solvency means that they have a guarantee on VAT, which at present they do not enjoy. In addition, the trustees will be able to use up to 40 per cent. of any surpluses in the fund and that is roughly the figure that is used at the moment for the payment of benefits.
Unlike most other funds there is a Government guarantee, an inflation index-linked pension guarantee, and there is the additional ability—the big difference from other index-linked pensions—to benefit from surpluses. That is the background and we have fairly and generously carried out our commitment to the pensioners. Certainly I wished to do that.
The grouping of amendments deals with Government payments under the Transport Act 1980. I will first deal with amendment No. 416 because most of the others in the group follow on from it. The memorandum of understanding between the Government, BR and the BR pension fund trustees deals with protecting the pensions of existing, deferred and future BR pensioners after privatisation while protecting the taxpayers' interests.
The solvency guarantee for the closed fund for existing pensioners, with the agreement that those pensioners may benefit from up to 40 per cent. of any future surplus and the promise of a similar guarantee to the BR residuary section of the joint industry scheme should that section at any time become seriously unstable, secures the future for all BR pensioners present and future. The provisions of the amendment are designed to provide the agreed protection for the taxpayer's interest.
It would be anomalous to continue the supply of public funds under section 52 of the Transport Act 1980 in circumstances in which they were not yet required, because the scheme now has the copper-bottomed security of an absolute solvency guarantee that is backed by public funds. That produces a fundamental difference—a guarantee from the taxpayer—that was never there before.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) referred to the situation in 1980 and said that he understood that the position then was, "If your pension went bust, you'd had it." I think that those were pretty much the words he used. The difference now is that, if the situation

arises of the fund being deficient, he has not had it. That is a big difference. It is a complete change from the position in 1980. Now he will continue to receive the pension guaranteed by the taxpayer. That is a fundamental difference.
Lords amendment No. 416 introduces three new sections—52B, 52C and 52D—into part III of the Transport Act 1980. The purpose of section 52B is to terminate the support contributions currently payable under section 52 of the 1980 Act in respect of the unfunded obligations acquired by any new pension scheme which has been given a Government solvency guarantee. So the contributions cease where there is a Government solvency guarantee, which is, above all, the closed existing pensioners fund.
10.15 pm
In place of the continuing contributions, a new obligation is proposed under which substitution payments will be made in circumstances to be prescribed by order. As I said, we intend to apply those arrangements principally to the new pensioners' closed section of the joint industry scheme, in line with the memorandum of understanding. But section 52B can equally be exercised in relation to the residual BR section of the joint industry scheme to which I referred earlier if a solvency guarantee is given in the event of the joint actuaries certifying the instability of the fund.

Mr. Prescott: It is complicated.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that it is a complex and technical matter. That is why I was careful to stick firmly to forms of words which will be understood by everyone involved when they are read in Hansard.
Subsection (5) requires a determination of the capital value of the unfunded obligations. It is worth spending a moment on that because a related issue was raised this afternoon. Subsection (7) (c) provides for the substitution payments to be made in circumstances prescribed in the substitution order. Until the payments have been made or the scheme has been wound up, the Government's liability will not be discharged.
Subsection (7) provides for interest to accrue. The formulation is sufficiently wide for an interest rate to be specified which can equate to that which could otherwise have been earned by the scheme if the trustees had received the cash. In other words, the Government's liabilities to the guaranteed new scheme will continue with interest on the outstanding balance as assets of the scheme until the prescribed circumstances provide for the substitution payments to be made. That obligation, with interest accrued, will be included in every valuation. Therefore, it will be part of the valuation leading to the surplus from which direct payments in cash will go to the pensioners.

Mr. John Heppell: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while the Government have the option not to pay anything into the fund if they do not want to, that is of little interest to the people in the pension fund, because nothing says that the Government have to pay the whole amount into the fund? So the money accrues with more and more interest but does so in the Treasury coffers and not in my pension fund.

Mr. MacGregor: That is not accurate. In circumstances where there is a surplus in the fund as a result of the obligation plus interest, there will be a direct and


immediate benefit to the pensioners. That will contribute to the 40 per cent. of surplus which can be paid directly to them. It is a meaningful provision. It means that the obligations exist. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the interest payments matter very much. We were accused earlier of not putting cash in, and therefore not enabling the pension fund to gain anything from that obligation.
With interest applied, there will be a roll-up in the fund. That will contribute to the surplus. So the amendment has real meaning and could mean real cash for the pensioner.

Mr. Heppell: Is the Secretary of State saying that the contributions that the Government are committed to paying under the 1980 Act will continue to be paid? If not, is he saying that the pension fund can receive those payments when it asks for them but not when the Government decide that it does not need it? If so, the Government will say that the fund does not need the contributions because it has a surplus. So the surplus would gradually be reduced. Is it the Government's intention to pay, because have evidence to the effect that their intention is effectively to reduce the contributions depending on the surplus of funds?

Mr. MacGregor: No. Let me make it clear. As I have already said, and as is clear in the amendments, there will not be a direct payment of cash to the pension fund as there was previously because that is now replaced by the solvency guarantee, which is a fundamental difference. There will be a calculation of the unfunded obligation, which will be included in the fund for the purposes of valuation and therefore for the purposes of surpluses, plus the interest that I have already mentioned, which can and will lead to real benefits.

Mr. Prescott: I agree that it is a complex area, but what the Secretary of State has said means that the Treasury, certainly at the moment, will be saving the annual payments that it makes right up to the period when an assessment is made and the IOU has to be delivered. What is the estimate of the amount that the Treasury will be saving for the rest of decade?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no estimate at the moment. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) must remember that the taxpayer has a liability and commitment, and there is no way in which the pensioner will lose by this arrangement at present, for the reasons that I have just described.
I shall now deal with the point about timing. The new section 52D, which has been causing concern, includes provisions relating to directions given under the powers contained in sections 52A and 52C and orders made under section 52B. I shall first explain the technicalities. Orders under section 52B will be subject to the negative resolution procedures in common with the other order-making power in part III of the Transport Act 1980. However, section 52D(1) requires prior consultation with the trustees on any such order and section 52D(4) requires a copy of the solvency guarantee to be laid before each House when or before an order is laid. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was referring this afternoon.
We are currently in discussion with the pension fund trustees as to how we deal with those extremely complex and technical matters in order to fulfil the arrangements

under the memorandum of understanding and the arrangements that I have just described. Those discussions will lead to the laying of the order before the House some time early next year, when we have completed it.
The House will know that this closed fund arrangement does not come into effect before next autumn, so it will be laid before the House well before that and the House will debate and decide on the matters. It will be by negative resolution, but that will enable the House to decide.

Mr. Cryer: There is a problem with laying negative procedure orders. Can the Minister guarantee that, when the order is laid, it will not come into force before Parliament has had the opportunity to make a decision? I must draw to the attention of the Minister examples of cases where orders have been laid in August, immediately after the beginning of the summer recess, which have come into force during the recess before Parliament has had a chance to debate them. Is the Minister saying that, after consultation with the trustees, Parliament will have the chance to make a decision? That assurance must be meaningful so that it will not be a case of trying to roll something that has already come into law.

Mr. MacGregor: I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Setting up the scheme will require an affirmative order. As I have said, the scheme is intended to come into operation as a closed fund in October. I understand that it would not be fair either to the pensioners or to the House to follow the sort of timetable that the hon. Gentleman suggested, and it is certainly not our wish to do so. It will obviously depend on how our negotiations go and I cannot give a complete guarantee, but I hope that I have said enough to indicate that I wish to meet his point.
Part of the whole commitment that we have given is that the scheme will come to both Houses for approval. That leads to the—

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I should get on, because I can then explain the position in total.
That leads to section 52D(2), which was introduced as an amendment on Report in the other place. It would require the prior written agreement of the trustees to be obtained before the Secretary of State laid an order under section 52B. Our amendment (a) to amendment No. 416 will delete that requirement.
I do not see how the House can accept Lords amendment No. 295. As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) rightly recognised, it could prevent a proposal, in relation both to the scheme as a whole and to public expenditure, from coming before the House. It would give the trustees an effective power of veto over the Government introducing secondary legislation, or control over the timing of payments, under the Transport Act 1980, to the guaranteed BR pensioner scheme.
I have made it clear that the memorandum of understanding, which I have fully read, provides for the trustees' agreement, but it would be wrong to provide in legislation for any private individual or group such as the trustees to have such power in primary legislation. I have been looking at past examples, and that would be unprecedented.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: Let me finish the point. There is a genuine problem, but we have done everything that we reasonably can to solve it. First, the proposed new section requires consultation with the trustees. It is clearly our intention and desire to seek and obtain agreement with the trustees on such matters. We have, as I have already said, started discussions with them. We have put a proposal to them and we await their response. It will be in the interests of all the parties concerned that agreement is reached.
However, we have to protect Parliament. A group of trustees might be able to withhold the putting of proposals before the House or control—having a veto means control —public expenditure proposals put before the House. Ministers will be answerable to Parliament for the way in which they exercise their order-making power. As taxpayers' funds are involved, we believe that that should be a decision for the House and not one taken elsewhere.
I hope that that makes clear what the difficulty is and why we have striven to overcome it. There is no duplicity. We have ended up with an extremely good deal for the pensioners. That is the most important point of all. We have sought to protect Parliament's interest. We have enabled the House to decide on what is quite a technical issue, once we have worked it through with the trustees. I believe that that is a sensible resolution.
I know that the matter will be debated for some time. I assure the House that the remaining amendments in the group are consequential or technical. I commend the other amendments to the House.

Mr. Prescott: When I spoke on the guillotine motion, I made clear my position, and that of the House, over the Government's action on the pensions. I know that other hon. Members have only the best part of an hour in which to speak, so I shall not go into the amendments in detail. The Secretary of State did so, and he spelt out his position, as was proper, because many people will be reading the report of the debates. However, I shall not follow him up that alleyway, because there is not enough time.
The essential issue about the pensions was determined at the beginning, when the Government decided to divide the pension fund into separate groups for separate companies. The Government often said that the tax authorities had forced them to do that, but that is not quite correct, because the tax authorities allow two ways to organise a pension fund.
A general industry fund could have been kept, but the Government decided to reorganise in such a way that it caused a conflict between the bodies, so the tax authorities said that the funds must be reorganised separately, and the problems arise from that. The main concern in this debate has been about the closed fund and pensioners who paid into the 1975 and 1980 funds. The closed fund will now be separated. No extra contributions will be made except those originally identified with the fund—the contribution to be made by the Government for their obligations arising directly from an unfunded pension fund.
That contribution amounts to some £80 million. We could argue about how that is divided between different funds, but it is approximately that amount. As the Treasury will not be paying it every year, it can be calculated to be five or six times £8 million. The Treasury is doing quite well, as it will save £4 billion or £5 billion, possibly more —being a little pessimistic, I think that it will save more —on the basis of providing an IOU.
10.30 pm
The Treasury has undoubtedly gained some assets from the process. It has saved by not paying a contribution to the pension fund, as written into the 1980 legislation. The Government are now offering an alternative—an IOU—and have gained from the process at the pension fund's expense.
At the heart of the debate has been the question whether the Government could reassure the trustees that their actions would meet their original commitment that the pensioners would be no worse off, their security would be guaranteed, and that the Government did not intend to take the funds. I do not agree with that point, but I have already made that clear.
It is only fair to feed into the argument the trustees' views. They have an interest to act on behalf of the pensioners in negotiations with the Government, and must say what they believe the Government intend to do. They recognise that the Government had difficulty in writing the solvency agreement into the Bill, and even recognised certain arguments about the power of veto and whether they could control the fund.
In a properly funded pension fund such as this, which the Government set up when they reorganised pension funds in 1980, the trustees are not obliged to agree with the Government. They have a fiduciary obligation, to which the Secretary of State referred, to manage the fund on behalf of the pensioners. Indeed, when the Government first funded the fund, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said that the fund no longer had anything to do with him and that he was obliged only to make a yearly payment. The same person is now trying to get back the yearly payment from that fund because he has discovered that surpluses have been paid.
The memorandum of understanding was the means by which the Government sought to assure the trustees about their responsibilities, rights and protections. The chairman of the trustees believed that it would protect the pensioners. The trustees made it clear that they hoped that, in accepting the Government's break-up of the fund, solvency and a retail prices index on pension payments would be guaranteed.
The Government said that they intended to give those guarantees, but they made other changes. The trustees then Agreed that the surpluses that were meant to fund the extra value pension increases which railway pensioners had enjoyed because of the good management of the fund, about which we all agree, were not to be put in a fund on the basis of a 60:40 share. That means that 100 per cent. would have been available to the trustees to distribute as they wished. They chose to distribute it on a 60:40 basis, measuring their liabilities against the incomes that they were receiving from the fund.
Now they have no choice. The Government are telling them not only that they must put 60 per cent. into a reserve fund but that an appointed director must agree any investment policy followed by the fund. It seems from that that the trustees are not in the independent position that they occupied before. The appointed director can determine the moneys to go into the fund and the investment programmes. The introduction of the 60:40 share will affect the solvency of the fund. The understanding makes clear that if there is a problem of insolvency in the fund, the Government, through their appointed trustee, can take over and reorganise the fund.
The charge that I have laid at the Government's door is that they were almost building insolvency into the fund. They were making conditions almost perfect for them to move in, take over the fund and reorganise it. It would then become a sort of unfunded fund and would meet the Exchequer's obligations. That would open the door to taking the assets. That creates uncertainty.
The Secretary of State has had correspondence with the chairman of the board, who feels that he has been let down by the Government because he believed that whatever action was taken had to be agreed with the trustees. We now know that that is not the case, as the amendment makes plain, because the Government now speak about consultation. If the Government feel that they cannot grant the right of veto, the complaint of the chairman of the trustees, as spelt out in the letters, should be attended to.
The Secretary of State has had a number of letters from the chairman of the trustees, Mr. Fowler, on 15, 19 and 26 October. We have no record of any replies. Did the Secretary of State reply to the great concerns expressed by the chairman of the board who thought that he had been duped on the memorandum of understanding?

Mr. MacGregor: I had a meeting.

Mr. Prescott: In his final letter, Mr. Fowler complains that he has sent three letters and has not received a reply. That letter states:
I am sufficiently experienced in public expenditure matters to know that Government guarantees cannot be given lightly and without sensible controls which protect taxpayers' interests." That is a fair point. The letter continues:
Those requirements were recognised in the Memorandum of Understanding.
That was an agreement—peace in our time, pensions in our time—that was made before the debate in the Lords.
Mr. Fowler adds:
What I had not foreseen when I signed the Memorandum was that the Secretary of State would be given powers to virtually take over the fund if the solvency guarantee were to be invoked.
He was a party to the negotiations and signed the paper along with the Minister of State. I do not know why the Secretary of State did not sign, but perhaps unfolding events have made that clear. Mr. Fowler makes it clear that his understanding of the memorandum was entirely different from that of the Secretary of State.
There is a clear division between the Secretary of State, the Government and the other signatory. I do not know what British Rail says about it.
If it was thought that there was a difference over the guarantees on terms and conditions why was the word "agree" in the memorandum? Irrespective of whether it is in statute, if it is in the agreement with good intent that there will be an agreement with the trustees before anything is done, that should have some meaning. Does the memorandum of understanding still apply? Did the Secretary of State say that he would apply the word "agreement"? What happens if there is no agreement? Will he take unilateral action by telling the House, "I could not get an agreement"? If so, that is consultation. The crucial question is why the Secretary of State does not use: the word "agreement".

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps I may explain again. I was straightforward in explaining the difficulty that we could not avoid the responsibility of the House by granting a veto on matters that should be decided by the House. I shall repeat the exact procedure. We think that we shall reach

agreement with the trustees, and that is our wish. When we do, we shall place orders before the House, and it will be for the House and the other place to decide upon them. If there is any disagreement, we shall lay before the House the trustees' comments. That is made clear in one of the sub-paragraphs that I read out. In relation to public expenditure, it is right that the House should decide. There is no question of the Government's taking control and leaving no alternative for the trustees. I repeat that I believe we shall reach agreement.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the Government effectively taking over the fund. There is no question of the Government's controlling or taking over the fund. However, because the Government, and therefore the taxpayer, are guaranteeing the benefits, we must ensure that the taxpayers' interests are protected. That is the reason for having a Government director on the body of trustees. It is not to control the fund, but simply to ensure that the taxpayer, who has the ultimate liability, is protected should all the funds be paid out to pensioners or otherwise issued.
Therefore, in unreasonable circumstances—I do not believe it will happen, but we have to protect ourselves in legislation—the taxpayers' interests are protected as the taxpayer would be footing the bill. There is no question of the Government's taking over the fund.

Mr. Prescott: We shall have to continue that debate another time, but if the Minister looks at the memorandum of understanding, he will see that his appointed Government director of the trustees,
whose consent will be required to the distribution of any surplus, strategic decisions on investment policy and other matters
and anything to do with the
guarantee of benefits granted from a surplus",
will
decide on the investment of the special reserve.
That is not the trustees; it is the Secretary of State's appointee acting on his instruction. The trustee company is no longer an independent body.
Why does the Secretary of State appoint a director? Why does he make it clear in the memorandum of understanding that trustees no longer have freedom to make such decisions unless the Government-appointed director agrees? Presumably he will ring up the Department of Transport or the Treasury. How can he consider for a second that the. Government are not controlling the fund? I cannot believe that the Secretary of State could possibly have read the memorandum of understanding; if he did, he had a duplicitous way of doing it.
Another example comes from the Minister of State's statement in the other place on 12 October in which he said:
The Government regard the memorandum of understanding as binding".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 1993; Vol. 549, c. 101.]
It may be binding on the Government, but it is totally meaningless. It can mean whatever the Secretary of State wants to interpret it to mean. As the lawyers to the trustees fund said, it has no binding in contract law. It cannot be used to claim that the Government are party to a contract as signatory to the document; it cannot be treated as a contract in law. It has no meaning whatsover. It achieved what the Government wanted—it won the vote in July in the House of Lords simply by kidding them.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: There is no point in giving way to the Secretary of State, as some of my hon. Friends want to speak.
The chairman's letter continues:
Third, your proposals, as presently stated, will effectively eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses arising. This is contrary to one of the basic principles underlying the Memorandum of Understanding.
The signature to it says it is contrary to what was agreed. Finally, he said that the Government IOU that would replace various funds and Transport Act payments would have serious implications for the fund. He went on to say the claims on the fund which the Government will now treat as an IOU that those claims on the fund will represent some 25 per cent. of the assets now, and that 10 years' later,
70 per cent. of the assets might be represented by the Government's IOU, thus moving close to an unfunded scheme".
It is the chairman of the trustees saying that.
The Secretary of State can disagree with me, but the trustees seem to have backed my interpretation. I have no doubt that nothing today or in the guillotine debate has put to rest my fears that perhaps not the Secretary of State but the Treasury intends eventually to work with the closed fund to an unfunded scheme where eventually the Government will take over control as they have now under the memorandum of understanding which, presumably, the Secretary of State will impose on the trustees.
The Secretary of State controls the fund. It will eventually move to an unfunded scheme and then the Treasury will make a deal with the pensioners, offering them a price-related, inflation-free business pension fund and they will have access to the £2 billion assets exactly as they did with the National Bus funds. Then, when they have established the formula, they will follow it through in the coal industry and the Post Office. These privatisations are solely about robbing the pensioners of their resources and assets, and that is why we will oppose the measure.

Mr. Bayley: The pensions issue has been a long and sorry saga, yet the Government still do not recognise that, for most railwaymen and women, their pensions represent their life savings. That is why there has been such an outcry from the pensioners about the Government's proposals for their scheme. The Secretary of State's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment would tear up the Government's obligation to contribute to the pension fund under the terms of the 1980 Act. That obligation arose because of the change in 1975 from a pay-as-you-go pension scheme—similar to the national health service scheme—to an asset-based, funded scheme.
In Committee, the Opposition sought a commitment from the Government that they would continue to meet their obligations under the 1980 Act. On 23 March, the Minister for Public Transport—I am tempted to say the Minister for Roger Freeman—said:
In 1980, my predecessor—now the Home Secretary—made a commitment under the Transport Act 1980 for the Government to make contributions—now about £70 million per annum—to the pension scheme in order to fund the pre-1975 unfunded liabilities for railwaymen and women. I give my hon. Friend a clear commitment that the Government will continue to make those contributions; they are under an obligation to do so. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that those contributions will continue to be made in the future because the obligations continue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 March 1993; c. 915.]
The Minister could hardly have been more clear than that.

Mr. Freeman: So that there is no misunderstanding, I must clarify that the commitment that the hon. Gentleman cited was given before the meeting with the trustees in July, when they rejected the outcome of our discussions in Committee and said that they wanted a guarantee that the undertaking of cash payments under the 1980 Act applied to a set of circumstances where there was no state guarantee of an index-linked pension. Everything changed in July.

Mr. Bayley: I refer the Minister to the letter from Derek Fowler, chairman of the trustees, to the Secretary of State, dated 26 October:
I certainly did not envisage the cash payments would cease indefinitely when I signed the memorandum, hence its reference to retiming.
If there is any misunderstanding, it is on the part of the Minister. In the memorandum of understanding signed on 20 July, the words agreed with the chairman of the trustees were:
The Government remains committed to support payments to certain BR pension funds.
In October, it became clear to the trustees that that commitment had been abandoned and that the Government intended to return to their previous plan, outlined in their first consultation document on pensions, to grab the pensioners' cash.
On 15 October, the chairman of the trustees wrote to the Secretary of State saying:
the main purpose in writing to you is to record my grave concern, and that of the Trustee Board, at your decision to change the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to support payments to certain BR pension funds under the 1980 Act … If payments under the 1980 Act cease and are substituted by a non-marketable Government IOU, the implications for the Fund would be very serious indeed. We calculate that in 10 years time the capitalised Transport Act payments would represent some 25 per cent. of the assets of the closed fund. 10 years later …over 70 per cent. of the assets might be represented … moving close to an unfunded scheme"—

such as was first suggested by the Government and which was withdrawn because of the outcry from the pensioners.
Back in the spring, the Government withdrew their cash grant scheme because the pensioners—the people whose money it is—did not want it. Through a process of leakage of funds that the Government currently have an obligation to pay into the scheme, we shall find in 20 years' time that 70 per cent. of the value of a fund has been removed and replaced with worthless pieces of paper with no tradeable value.
The fund's real assets will be progressively replaced by IOUs. They are not cash and cannot be spent by the fund. It would be inflationary for the Government to print £70 million to place in the fund. As the IOUs have no tradeable value, if the pension fund wants in future to invest in works of art, it can hardly go to Sotheby's and say, "We want to buy a Rembrandt, will you accept our IOU?" If it wants to buy property, it cannot go to Jackson, Stops and Staff and say, "We want to buy this industrial estate. We want to buy this mansion. Will you accept our IOU?" If it wanted to invest in the equity market, it could not go to a stockbroker and offer an IOU.
The Government seek to do by the back door that which they sought to do earlier by the front door—remove the fund's assets. Instead of simply grabbing the cash and putting it into the Treasury, the Government intend to dispense with their obligation to fund the scheme to the tune of £70 million a year.
The second development that arises from the debates in another place is the change in the way in which the fund's surplus will be applied. Pensioners currently have a guarantee that their pensions will rise each year by at least the rate of inflation, and they have the opportunity to benefit from any surplus from the scheme. That has been replaced by an inflation guarantee—I acknowledge that —but also by an ability to benefit from a maximum of only 40 per cent. of any surplus.
Earlier, the Secretary of State told the House that the balance of 60 per cent. will remain in the fund, but will it remain as part of the assets that the trustees will control, or will it—as I understand will be the case—fall under the control of a Government-appointed commissar? If so, it will be part not of the pension fund but of a separate, Government-controlled fund.
I would like some of the pensioners to speak for themselves. I represent a large number of British Rail pensioners, and 350 of them wrote to me. Not one was in favour of the Government's proposals. A Mrs. Pratt wrote:
I fail to understand the dishonesty of the Treasury, who want to steal our fund to try and get themselves out of the mess they have got themselves into. They seem to have no respect for the elderly, who went without luxuries to pay into the fund.
Mr. Waite wrote:
How they contemplate such an act and condemn Maxwell for exactly the same behaviour makes one gasp.
Mr. Backshall wrote:
Comparisons with the morals of the late Mr. Maxwell are hard to resist.
Mr. Carey wrote:
The sterling work done by the administrators in building up the fund's assets has already benefited British Rail, relieving them of their commitment to contribute to the fund for quite some time …I trust you will do all your best to persuade the Transport Secretary to refrain from his intention to take the funds belonging to the railway staff past and present.
These funds were those guaranteed under the 1980 Act, and the Government have an obligation to pay £70 million a year into the scheme as a consequence of the change from


an unfunded to a funded scheme. Those are late payments on behalf of people who paid for and accrued their pensions before 1975. For the Government to pay with IOUs is not to meet their obligation to many of my constituents.
It is not good enough. The Government may think that they are winning a great victory tonight by forcing through the Bill and this pension change on a guillotined vote, but it will come back to haunt them at the next election. Rail pensioners will not tolerate their life savings being tampered with by the Government, and the Government will face their Waterloo at the next election because of the way in which they have treated the rail pensioners.

Mr. Alan Williams: I shall be very brief.
Ministers' record on pensions has been deplorable and devious. As the other place will confirm, there are lies, damn lies and ministerial memoranda.
What on earth is the value of this so-called memorandum? The Secretary of State tried to argue that it has validity. We all know that it has no validity against statute law, which is what we are dealing with tonight. The terms of the statute are what will be judged in the court.
The IOU, like so many other provisions of the Bill, is yet another expression of the Government's inability to work out what they want to do. This is their latest gimmick. What is the point of the IOU? Does it count against public expenditure for the year when it is given? Is it real? Is it an asset that can be used by the pension fund? Of course not. As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said, assets cannot be bought, or good investments made, with an IOU.
The feature of the pension fund has been the good judgment of its trustees, which has been recognised time and again by the Minister for Public Transport, who has paid tribute to the trustees for the way in which they have managed the money. They cannot manage IOUs. What will be the value of an IOU in 10 or 15 years?
It is not good enough for the Minister to pretend that this spurious memorandum offers any protection. The one common feature of the Bill and of the pension proposals has been the Minister's attempt to take powers that go well beyond any that he should need if his objectives are as modest or as honourable as he has claimed.
For proof, one has only to look at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 to schedule 10, under which the Secretary of State may amend, may decide who is in or who is out, who contributes, what proportion the employee or employer contributes, what amendments are to be made to the old and new schemes, when the schemes will be wound up and even what proportion of assets will be transferred between an old and a new scheme.
The Minister says that the Government will guarantee the new scheme. What is worrying is that they have control over the amount of assets that can be allocated from the old scheme to the new one because, as guarantor of the new scheme, they have a vested interest in transferring as much as possible. There is a clash of interests.
The Bill offers the Government the unprecedented ability to take private assets from people without proper compensation by offering them IOUs that will have a

diminishing value in real terms. What protection is there? The Bill proposes that Ministers will consult. Who can be taken in by any pretence that this Government will consult?
I remember the consultation that took place on my local hospital becoming a trust hospital. The representations were about 9:1 against, and virtually every authority of any importance was opposed to the idea. The Minister involved refused to publish the names of those who were in favour but, at the end of the day, he could say that he had consulted, and the hospital became a trust hospital. Consultation does not mean taking note. It is no good the Minister saying that he wants agreement, because the Bill does not state that he needs agreement; the Bill states only that he needs to consult, after which all he needs is an order.
11 pm
In Committee, I referred to one of the tragedies of any party that has been in office too long. I say this without meaning to be patronising, but there are now too many Conservative Members who have never been in opposition and been kicked around by Ministers. Those hon. Members who entered the House when I did, or shortly afterwards, can look back and see how many affirmative orders have been defeated over the years.
What happens when a Minister introduces such an order and the Whips put the squeeze on their Back Benchers? What has always happened will happen with today's rebellion. Let us also bear it in mind that an order is debated for only one and a half hours, so hardly anyone has the opportunity to participate. In addition, an order cannot be amended—one either accepts it or turns it down.
The Bill gives Ministers the power to do what they like with other people's assets. What would the Conservatives think if a Labour Government told them that they intended to do the same with private pension funds in which their constituents had an interest? We may disagree politically, but that is a genuine question because it could happen, although I would hope that we would not do anything so outrageous. However, let us suppose that we did—how would the Conservatives feel? What reassurance would they find in the unamendable affirmative procedure and a one-and-a-half hour debate? What satisfaction would they be able to give to their constituents? That is how we feel now when talking about the people whose interests we are trying to represent.

Mrs. Dunwoody: One of the most depressing aspects of this utterly depressing Bill is the shiftiness with which the Government have dealt with pensions. I do not think that the Government understand the extent of the outrage felt by railway workers about the Government's behaviour. That outrage is valid among people who have contributed to pension funds all their lives but are suddenly being told that the control of those funds is being transferred from the proper trustees and put in the hands of the Government.
During our consideration of this part of the Bill, Ministers said that the original idea was to have agreement. During the negotiations, however, they came to believe that they did not need agreement after all; they merely needed to consult. I am amazed that the Government think that they can treat the House and our constituents with such contempt.
I have literally hundreds of railway pensioners in my constituency—men and women who, despite very low rates of pay, have contributed to pension schemes all their


lives. They believed that their interests would be protected and that the future of the railway industry was such that they would always have the security of knowing that in their old age they would have proper pension provision. They now feel seriously—

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As someone who is still relatively new to the procedure of the House, may I ask whether it is in order for an hon. Member who chaired part of the Committee's proceedings to take part in the debate when the matter comes back to the Floor of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): There is no rule on that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Actually, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have consulted the House authorities, and you may like to know that, in the view of the Chairman of Ways and Means, Lords amendments are not comparable. I chaired one sitting of the Committee, to assist a member of another party who was in a difficult situation. There is no reason why I should have to excuse my behaviour. My constituents require me to speak on their behalf. The intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) shows how ashamed Conservative Members are of the Government's behaviour. They do not even dare to listen to Opposition Members making a legitimate case for their pensioners.
The Government would like that case to go by default. They do not want an open discussion; they always want to hide behind semantics and presentation, and to suggest that they are offering genuine guarantees. Tonight, for their own ends, and certainly for their own financial advantage, the Government seek to introduce a scheme which, far from protecting railwaymen, railwaywomen and future railway industry pensioners, puts those people in a less advantageous position and damages their interests.
I believe that the Minister is an honourable man, but I do not think that he realises that many people outside the House are capable of understanding what is happening here. They may not know the difference between an affirmative and a negative procedure, and they may not understand the procedures of the House of Commons or of another place, but they understand something much simpler. They understand that what is important between a Government and the people who vote is trust, faith, understanding, commitment and, above all, the belief that a Government will not seek by some shabby manoeuvre to deprive them of their legitimate rights. People know what the Government are doing, and in due course they will make them pay.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Those who served on the Standing Committee know only too well that the question of what will happen to the British Rail pension fund after privatisation is a nut that the Government have significantly failed to crack time and again. Either they had no proposals prepared, or those that they presented were totally unacceptable not only to the Committee but to the pensioners and to the trustees of the pension fund.
The Secretary of State opened our debate on pensions tonight by saying yet again that he wanted to clarify the position, to calm fears and to allay suspicions. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to make four points, although if my memory serves me well he managed to

cover only three of those subjects: assets, solvency and what a good deal the Government were giving BR pensioners—as though the pension fund were his to give.
With regard to the assets, the one chink of light and the one way forward for pensioners seemed to come from the memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister—on behalf of the Government, I presume—and by the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. and by a board member. That document was signed on 20 July, but on 26 October the chairman of the trustees wrote to the Minister expressing grave concern about changes that he thought were taking place, although he had believed the memorandum to be binding on all parties.
In one letter, the chairman deals with the issue of assets. He says:
The indefinite cessation of cash payments under the 1980 Act will accelerate the realisation of marketable assets to pay pensions. It is only on those assets that the Trustees can earn real increases. As those assets are realised the non-marketable Government IOU will represent a larger proportion of total scheme assets, thus diminishing the scope for real increases and disadvantaging pensioners.
In a letter of 26 October to the Secretary of State, the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. touches on the issue of solvency, which the Secretary of State assured us tonight is entirely safe because it is in the Government's hands. He says:
I am sufficiently experienced in public expenditure matters to know that Government guarantees cannot be given lightly and without sensible controls which protect taxpayers' interests. Those requirements were recognised in the Memorandum of Understanding. What I had not foreseen when I signed the Memorandum was that the Secretary of State would be given powers to virtually take over the fund if the solvency guarantee were to be invoked.
On the issue of the good deal, the chairman, in another letter to the Secretary of State, says:
your proposals, as presently stated, will effectively eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses arising. This is contrary to one of the basic principles underlying the Memorandum of Understanding.
So a man whose entire professional life has been dedicated to the management of pensions funds and who has written to the Secretary of State about the assertions that he made to the House and the country tonight—that the assets of the pension fund are safe, the solvency of the pension fund is safe and pensioners will continue to get a good deal from the fund—believes that the Secretary of State is being so èconomical with the truth that he 'puts Scrooge in second place.
One of the points made by the Minister tonight was that there could be no power of veto over Government expenditure. Clearly, that point had occurred to the trustees in the light of the changes that the Government were making to what they had supposed was a binding agreement—the memorandum of understanding.
The British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. sought legal advice, which I quote:
the new Sections 52B to 52D give to the Government a far greater degree of flexibility than is envisaged in the Memorandum …These powers are very broad".
If the powers are taken out of the hands of trustees, they will be exercised to the detriment of scheme members.
The Government's control over public expenditure only exists because Parliament has given it the necessary powers through legislation. Parliament can therefore impose constraints on those powers.
If only the Government had given Parliament sufficient time to debate that issue.
The legal adviser to the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. says that there are precedents which discount the Government's argument that they would be handing over the power of veto to the trustees:
Section 33(3) of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 provides a precedent for the imposition of duties on the Secretary of State in making orders. We believe that there may be numerous other examples on the statute book".
I do not think that anyone can argue that the opinions and the evidence that I have presented in this debate come from a party political stance. As hon. Members know, I have the great honour to be a Member sponsored by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen [Interruption.] It never fails to amaze me that I continue to give Tory Members the benefit of the doubt that they can read and hear. This is by no means new information, yet every time I say it, certain Tory Members react as though it is the first time in their lives that it has been presented to them.
My constituents also include British Rail pensioners and their dependents. They believe that, in this as in so many issues, the Government have shown a marked lack of trust for, and sense of duty to, pensioners.
We know that the Government hold pensioners in fairly low esteem. They intend to introduce a whole range of measures that will impinge on pensioners' life styles with great cruelty. In this regard, however, I feel that the Government have absolutely no right to any respect. As Opposition Members told the Secretary of State earlier, the way in which the Government have attempted to take the British Rail pension fund away from the people to whom it most justifiably belongs in order to buy their way out of their economic incompetence is disgraceful, and they should resign.

Mr. Heppell: I shall not speak for long, because I spoke for some time in the guillotine debate. However, I should like some guarantees from the Secretary of State.
I take great exception to being patronised by the Secretary of State about what he has given me. The fact that I will get an inflation-proof pension, the fact that I shall be able to share in some of the surpluses and the fact that I now have a pension that guarantees solvency do not make me feel a great deal better, as I enjoyed all those benefits before. I had no guarantee, but I had solvency.
I had an inflation-proof pension, with benefits from the surpluses. Indeed, for some of the last few years of my time on the railways I paid half contributions, because of the contributions holiday for both my employer and myself: the surpluses were that healthy. The scheme was completely solvent: no one had any worries about its solvency until the Government introduced their privatisation plans.
I will not thank the Secretary of State for his guarantee of solvency. I will not say thank you for something that I had in the first place, which the Government then took away from me; nor will I say thank you to the Government for giving me interest on money that they borrowed from me.
Let me quote from a statement made by the Minister on 22 April. It is similar to what others have quoted. There is no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State made a

promise—a promise like many others that I have been given by him and the Minister about my pension. The Minister said:
The Bill does not yet contain amendments to the Transport Act 1980. These are likely to be necessary in order to continue the payment of Government contributions to successor schemes—a commitment the Government have already given. These amendments will be brought forward at a later stage."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 22 April 1993; c. 1296.]
There is nothing ambiguous about that. The Government are going to continue to pay their contributions to the scheme. And so they should: a promise was written into the Transport Act 1980 that, because the Government had underfunded my pension scheme, they would guarantee contributions each year.
At about 8·30 pm on 25 March 1980, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), now Chancellor of the Exchequer—made that promise. It may be necessary to bring him to the House to explain to the Secretary of State and the Minister what that promise meant. They are seeking to welsh on it—to welsh on me, and on other pensioners. I do not think that that should be allowed. There is no reason why those contributions should be removed.
However, there is a memorandum of understanding. It seems that the Secretary of State's understanding is different from that of the trustees. I do not like that memorandum and would criticise my trustees for signing it. I do not see why I should be obliged to lend the Government money from my pension fund. The trustees are obviously much more generous than me, recognise the difficulties of the Government, the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have decided that, instead of taking the contributions, they will lend them to the Government, who can have them on loan.
I should be happy if it were merely a loan, but I have no doubt that it is not a loan. If I am wrong, I am happy to give way to the Minister or the Secretary of State so that I may be told when the loan will be paid back. A loan involves lending money and, at some stage, receiving it back. However, I have heard nothing from the Government to tell me when I will get my money back. One issue that is worrying the trustees now is the fact that the Government sent out a letter to their Back Benchers to placate them and assure them that the trustees were happy.
The trustees have written to say that the letter is wrong. In their letter to Back Benchers, the Government said:
we all acknowledge that whilst the liability to make payments under the Transport Act 1980 would remain, actual cash drawings under this arrangement should be made only when the Fund needed the cash payment.
Who decides when that payment is needed? That was why the clause had to be included in the memorandum. The trustees recognised the importance of the clause because the loan could be made and the timetable for repayment could be made only with the agreement of the trustees. The Government seek to remove the undertaking that they gave to the trustees. I understand why the trustees are angry.
As part of their privatisation process, the Government wanted to take part of my pension. They wanted to take the surpluses in my pension because they thought that I was receiving too much. In Committee, some Conservative Members asked me what I was moaning about, as I received a good pension. I do not think that I should receive merely a good pension; I think that I should have the best pension that those funds can provide. Every other


pensioner is entitled to that. The Government have no right to take part of my pension to stick it in the Treasury because they think my pension is too good—that is not on.
The Government have made it clear, first with their two options and now by their actions, that their intention throughout was to take my money. The biggest irony of the Bill is that, while the Government talk about competition and privatising, they have nationalised my pension.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I intervene for only one reason: out in the country, tens of thousands of pensioners and potential pensioners are deeply worried. Although many of the issues raised were entirely legitimate and I would like to hear the answers to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), the pensioners do not have to worry about the fundamental facts. Their pension is protected, they will receive at least as much as they have always expected or hoped to receive, and nobody is bent on filching anything from them.
If the individual pensions to be received by my constituents and those of other hon. Members were to be tampered with in any way, does any hon. Member believe that a Government of any persuasion would get away with it? Of course they would not.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Lady, who seeks to intervene and to whom I shall give way in a moment, knows that as well as I do.
Trust has been talked about in the Chamber this evening. There are plenty of hon. Members in the Chamber who always put party interest way below any other. If any Government of any party sought to engage in the sort of pilfering exercise that has been talked of, they would not get away with it. I do not believe for a moment that my right hon. and hon. Friends would ever engage in such an exercise. They know very well that there would be sufficient on the Conservative Benches to stop them if they tried.

Mr. Prescott: The Department of Transport has already been involved in the very process of raiding pension funds. When the National Bus Company was privatised, the pension fund was broken up in a similar manner and the Department made it clear in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee that the sale price of £200 million was made up of about £150 million taken from the pension fund, a surplus which went directly to the Treasury. The Government have already done it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not watching. He could have prevented it but it did happen.

Mr. Cormack: But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that no pensioner has suffered as a result of—

Mr. Prescott: They did.

Mr. Cormack: No, I do not think that that is the case. No individual pensioner has suffered. The point that I am seeking to make can stand any challenge. I of course want to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister will say when he replies to the debate, but I repeat that no Government, Conservative or Labour, would get away with raiding the individual pensions of any of our constituents, and we do those constituents a disservice by fuelling their anxieties at a time like this.

Mr. John Denham: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has put one version of the history of the past year's debate on the pension scheme. That is the version that the Government would like us to accept; the version that says that a valiant band of honest men and women have been struggling against great obstacles, legal problems, Inland Revenue difficulties and parliamentary procedures in order to guarantee the future interests of British Rail pensioners.
An alternative view of the history of the past 12 months' debate is that the Government's main objective has been to confuse and to defuse the anger that arose among British Rail pensioners as a result of this move, while at the same time achieving their fundamental objective—a devalued pension scheme which will pay less than would have been the case under the existing scheme, and which brings financial benefits to the Treasury. I believe that time will show that that is the correct view of the past 12 months.
By the time that the Bill reached Committee, I had received, either directly or through my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), more than 800 letters from railway pensioners in the Southampton area expressing concern about the Government's proposal and supporting the continuation of the existing scheme. That concern continued to mount during the summer months, until the memorandum of understanding was agreed between the Government and the British Rail trustees.
The memorandum of understanding was given wide publicity. I seem to recall that a letter was sent to every individual member of the fund from the trustees outlining its main terms. When that letter was received, the anger collapsed and the momentum of the campaign against the scheme was diffused.
Although those who looked at the scheme closely knew that the scheme on offer was less good than the maintenance of an industry-wide scheme which new entrants to the railway industry would continue to join, they did have a letter from the chairman of the trustees of the British Rail pension fund saying that a satisfactory deal had been reached.
Those pensioners and tens of thousands of others thought that that agreement with the Government was the guarantee. They thought that the agreement was the result of the letters that they had written to their Members of Parliament, and that it would secure their futures in the pension fund. So in July the Government had achieved their primary objective of the past 12 months, which was to stop the wave of anger throughout the country by leading pensioners to believe that their futures were secure.
11.30 pm
That explains the tone of the correspondence between the chairman of the pension trustees and the Secretary of State, to which several hon. Members have referred this evening. In a letter to the Secretary of State dated 26 October, Derek Fowler said:
I saw the Memorandum of Understanding as a milestone on the way towards securing Government objectives to secure BR Pensions. The steady erosion of what I thought had been agreed seems to justify the sceptical approach taken by many of my colleagues and others to the Memorandum".
It is not for me to put words into the mouth of the chairman of the pension fund trustees, but it seems to me that, in the publicity surrounding the memorandum of understanding in July, the chairman of the trustees was asked to put his good name and reputation to what has since been used


cynically by the Government to defuse pensioner and public opposition to the move. I regard that action as unjustified.
There are major problems with what is now proposed. They have been highlighted by other hon. Members. If IOUs are substituted for cash payments, as the chairman of the fund points out, that will
accelerate the realisation of marketable assets to pay pensions. It is only on those assets that the Trustees can earn real increases.
The Bill provides no protection which would prevent the timing of the payments being so phased or delayed as to force the fund to realise marketable assets faster than would have occurred under the existing arrangements.
Every time that the trustees are forced to sell investments which they currently hold, a transfer of the assets of the fund has been achieved, to the saving and the benefit of the Treasury.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the whole affair have the fingerprints of the Treasury all over it? The hapless Ministers are in the hands of the Treasury. If the principles of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) are to be put into practice—we all wish they would be—surely the Government must come back with another Bill to return to the status quo. That is the only way in which the criteria of the hon. Gentleman can be observed.

Mr. Denham: I agree with my hon. Friend. He refers to Conservative Members. To those Conservative Members who are feeling secure about their pensioners because they have received a briefing note or letter from the Secretary of State, I point out that in the same letter to the Secretary of State, Mr. Derek Fowler said:
The letter to your colleagues dated 22 October heightens my concern.
That is what the chairman of the trustees said about the party political propaganda which has been circulated to Conservative Members and is undoubtedly intended for them to reproduce and send to their constituents who are British Rail pensioners. I hope that any right hon. or hon. Member who intends to do that will ensure that he includes the comments of the chairman of the trustees when he writes to his constituents. To do less would not be entirely honest.
At the outset of this exercise, the Government proposed nicking the assets of the pension fund in one go. That gave rise to a howl of outrage, so the Government said that they would not. We knew that they would. They knew that we knew that they would. They knew that we did not quite know how they would do it, so they continued to say that they would not, but they continued to know that they would. Now they are, and they know that they are, and we know that they know that they are, but still they say that they are not. It is clever, but it is cynical and wrong, and for hundreds of thousands of pensioners, it is robbery.

Mr. Stevenson: Having sat through most of the two-day debate without contributing to it, I hesitated to do so at this late hour, but was prompted to intervene by the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
Many of my hon. Friends, and some Conservative Members, have said that the Government do not understand what is happening. Having listened to the debate, I believe that they fully understand what is happening. They know exactly what they are doing. They know the principles that they are establishing in this rotten

Bill. If there is a pension fund that the Treasury can get its hands on, the Government will establish the principles, under whatever comouflage or subterfuge afforded by their amendments, to allow that to happen legitimately. My hon. Friends have established that beyond any doubt. The giggling and smiling that I have witnessed from some Tory Members will not camouflage that.
The Secretary of State said that he wanted to clarify the apparent contradiction between the contents of the memorandum of understanding, which was signed in July, and the Government's amendment, which changes the word "agreement" to "consultation". I know that many Conservative Members think about such matters carefully, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said. There is a great deal of difference between the two words. I do not want to rehearse the points made by my hon. Friends, who have adequately and starkly shown the difference between the two.
In attempting to clarify the situation, the Secretary of State caused more confusion. Which is it to be? Is it to be agreement or consultation? He said that there would be negotiations between him and the trustees of the fund, and if they are to be based on the memorandum of understanding, in all good faith—I ask Tory Members to think about that—they will have to be based on agreement. The tragic irony is that, if Tory Members troop through the Lobby in favour of the amendment, they will break faith with the memorandum of understanding. They simply cannot have it both ways. That is a fundamental principle.
Before the Division is called, the House will need a clear statement from the Secretary of State on which word is right. Is it to be the memorandum of understanding or the amendment? Will it be agreement or consultation? I see the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) shake his head. I recognise that I am not a public school person, but the thousands of pensioners who will be listening to the debate with great interest will understand clearly that, no matter how you try to camouflage it, you cannot have it both ways. It must be agreement or consultation.
If Conservative Members support the amendment in the Lobby they will have broken faith for party and trust.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he should be addressing the Chair.

Mr. Stevenson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am relatively new to the House and am grateful for your guidance.
The comments of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South touched on the issue of trust and faith. In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), he mentioned the National Bus Company employees. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said that they were British Rail pensioners. I suspect that I am one of the few Members who used to belong to the Bus Employee Superanuation Trust, to which thousands of bus workers contributed year after year. When the Government privatised it, they gave £150 million of our money to the Treasury, which reduced my entitlement. The Bus Employee Superannuation Trust is now all but destroyed as a direct result of legislation supported by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South.
If hon. Members want evidence, they need not wait for the film but can read the book. It is all there for them to see.


The case has unquestionably been made that the Government intend to act in the same way again, and I urge all Conservative Members with a conscience to support us in the Lobby.

Mr. Wilson: It is fitting, and a metaphor of our proceedings, that we should end tonight's debate with a contrast between fantasy and realism. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a characteristic, Vicar-of-Bray contribution, in which he tried to show the world that all was well. But I fear that anyone who is counting on the happy consensus which he envisaged, based on Conservative Members suppressing party loyalty while they safeguard the interests of pension funds and the national good, will be deeply disillusioned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Stevenson) pointed out, and as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South clearly did not understand, we have seen this scenario before. He told us that Conservative Members would put aside party loyalties—all the matters which we pray about—and carefully guard pension funds, and that no Government of any complexion would lay their hands on a pension fund, heaven forfend. But it happened with the National Bus Company. The gains to the Treasury from the net receipts from winding up pension funds amounted to £120 million. And one of the people directly involved in it has cast some realism on the debate.
However, tonight we are discussing not £120 million but big bucks. We are discussing money that makes a serious dent in the public sector borrowing requirement. We are discussing the scale of precedent that could be applied to the coal pension fund, the Post Office pension fund and, I suppose, every other pension fund on which the Government have set their eyes.
If we are waiting for the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South and his men of no fixed allegiance to pass among us ensuring that none of that ill is visited upon society, few of the thousands of pensioners who have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard that as much of a guarantee. They would prefer a guarantee in the Bill to a verbal guarantee by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South.
Ministers have conspicuously refused to give a guarantee in the Bill at every stage of the proceedings because they intend to get the Treasury's hands on the surplus of the British Rail pension fund. The mystery may never be solved. We may never know the answer to my earlier question about which came first to these malevolent minds. Was it rail privatisation or getting their hands on the pension fund? Did the Government think of rail privatisation and then realise what they could do with the pension fund? Rail privatisation is a disruption of our national railway system, a threat to the whole network through privatisation and fragmentation. Is that the by-product of the grand scheme of getting their hands on the pension funds? That is the $64,000 question, or perhaps it is the £4 billion question.
11.45 pm
The only reason for the fear in the minds of pensioners about what is being done is the Bill to privatise British Rail. If there were no Bill to fragment BR, there would be no insecurity in the minds of railway pensioners. Everything that has been visited upon those pensioners over the past few months is a by-product of the Bill. The responsibility for that uncertainty and concern, which are

manifested in the correspondence, demonstrations and petitions, rests with the Government because of what they have set about doing to the railways.
The Government could have set about privatising the railways and still maintained a single pension fund. That could have been done if it were not the Government's intention to get this vast sum for the Treasury. Their only reason for fragmentation is to serve their wider political agenda.
This document in my hand will haunt Ministers and Conservative Members who support the amendment. It is the letter from the chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company Ltd. What I and other hon. Members say is of limited relevance, but this letter is an indictment, because it charges the Government with cheating, giving false guarantees and reneging. With a bit of luck in the other place, the House might have to return to these matters tomorrow. I shall read the indictment. It states:
I very much regret the need to have written to you three times in less than three weeks on fundamental differences of view between the Government and the British Rail Trustees. I saw the Memorandum of Understanding as a milestone on the way towards securing Government objectives to secure BR pensions. The steady erosion of what I thought had been agreed seems to justify the sceptical approach taken by many of my colleagues and others to that Memorandum.
In order to win the vote in the Lords, the man who was prepared to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt while his colleagues were not, said less than a week ago, on 26 October, "I was wrong and they were right." That is an indictment of Ministers and we shall pursue this issue at every stage.
We hope that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South will remember this night and will not say in three or four years, "We are your guardians." Now is the time to be guardians, and if they fail in that duty no pension fund will be safe, because this is the greatest potential robbery in the history of pension funds. The Members who support the Government in the Lobby will bear a heavy responsibility.

Mr. Freeman: The performance by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was dramatic, but it was at variance with the facts. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman spoke about the fear in the minds of pensioners. The Opposition, not the Bill, have put that fear there. I shall deal with the six substantive points raised in the debate, because I appreciate that the matter is likely to go to the other place and it is important that the facts are on the record. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that this is a sensitive subject for all pensioners. That is why it should be dealt with properly, soberly and rationally, so that we do not incite unnecessary fears in the minds of pensioners.
When the Bill left Committee, we were not speaking about a state guarantee for the pension fund. We were talking about a closed fund for the pensioners—part of the joint industry scheme that had its own assets and trustees. It was at the request of the trustees; it was not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who summoned them. They came to the Government and said, "We are not happy with the Bill as it came out of the Standing Committee; we want a state guarantee for the index-linked pensions." That was not part of what we discussed in the Standing Committee and that changed circumstances entirely.
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that a state guarantee for index-linked pensions is of great significance to the public sector? Who has to honour that commitment? It is the Treasury.

Mr. Prescott: The Treasury guaranteed it in the first place.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong; the pensioners were not guaranteed by the state. There was no Government guarantee for the pensioners.
Both Opposition Front-Bench Members raised a number of issues. Let us be clear about the answers. First, we are talking about payments to the closed funds and not to the other open funds; therefore, we are talking not about £70 or £80 million but about £50 million. The cash payments will continue to be made to the other funds that are not subject to a state guarantee.
Secondly, we have made it quite clear that the liabilities that continue to accrue under the Transport Act 1980 will be capitalised at the point at which the new scheme is created. The present value of the scheme of future payments will be calculated not by the Secretary of State for Transport, but by the actuaries. That will come to a substantial sum of several hundred million pounds.

Mr. Prescott: When?

Mr. Freeman: That will be calculated when the fund is set up on 1 October 1994. That is the intention. That asset will be on the balance sheet of the pension fund. I accept that we have to ensure that it is properly valued and not worthless; that it has the value that the actuaries put on it for the purposes of calculating the surplus in the pension funds which, up to a certain proportion, can be distributed to the pensioners.
Thirdly, it was agreed by the trustees—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seeks to divide the chairman of the trustees from the others. All the trustees agreed that the memorandum of understanding signed by the chairman was right and proper. They gave him their support and it was quite clear in the memorandum of understanding that, in return for the state guarantee on index-linked pensions, there should be payments from the Government under their accruing liabilities only when there was proven need.
The hon. Gentleman asked who is going to establish when that need arises. The answer is that the actuaries have to value the fund. They measure the assets and liabilities every three years. It is not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; it is the actuaries.
Fourthly, I look forward to a resumption of discussions as soon as possible in which we will seek to reach agreement with the trustees on the scheduling of any payments that may be made under the 1980 Act, irrespective of need. The trustees want not only cash payment when there is need, but specific maturities of the amount that has been capitalised and put on the balance sheet.
My right hon. Friend the Secretay of State and I will seek to reach agreement with the trustees not only about the scheduling of the payments but about the specific interest rate that is to apply. I know that we will be able to

reach agreement and, as my right hon. Friend has said in any case we have to lay before both Houses orders which are a direct result of those negotiations.
Fifthly, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North talked about the proportion of the fund that these capitalised assets, the accrued liabilities being paid by the Government, accruing from the Government under the 1980 Transport Act might represent of the fund. The hon. Gentleman quoted a example of 70 per cent. We do not recognise that figure; the actuarial advice to the Government is that the proportion will be closer to 20 per cent.—a normal proportion of any pension fund represented by gilt-edged securities.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the 60 per cent. of the fund—[Interruption.] Of course it is true. That will be retained in the fund.
In any pension fund, and certainly the BR pension fund in the past, the 60 per cent. that was not distributed to the pensioners, who usually had 40 per cent. of the benefit of any surplus, went back to the employees and the employer. It left the fund and went to British Rail. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), when he was a member of the Staff of British Rail, shared in a contributions holiday. That is an example of where the 60 per cent. went. We are now saying that the 60 per cent. will stay in the fund.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that the pensions surplus was stolen from the National Bus scheme. However, that was a balance-of-costs scheme, so—unlike BR—it was not entitled to the surplus. That is the difference. The hon. Gentleman's charge was completely out of order.

Mr. Prescott: In view of the time, I thank the Minister for giving way. He gave the impression that he wanted to get the facts straight for the benefit of the other place. Derek Fowler, chairman of the trustees, wrote to the Secretary of State saying:
I certainly did not envisage the cash payments would cease indefinitely when I signed the memorandum, hence its reference to the retiming.
That is contrary to what the Minister has just told us.

Mr. Freeman: It is not contrary—[Interruption.] It is not. We have made it quite plain .that we are not talking about an indefinite cessation of payments. I explained that a few minutes ago, and I repeat it now.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for what he said. He was right to say that the pensioners have not only a state guarantee of index-linked pensions but a share in the surplus. They have a separate, discrete pension fund, managed by trustees under independent management. That is an excellent deal for the pensioners, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wrong for Ministers in any way to undermine that.
Ministers in the Department of Transport, led by my right hon. Friend, will honour the commitment to reach agreement with the trustees and to come back to the House with orders that will entirely discharge those responsibilities. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 284.

Division No. 383]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beggs, Roy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cran. James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard





Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erawash)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bifm E'st'n)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knox, Sir David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sackville, Tom


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Legg, Barry
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stephen, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy






Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and



Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Mrs Irene
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ainger, Nick
Dowd, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Alton, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Enright, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Etherington, Bill


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Austin-Walker, John
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, Andrew F.
Galloway, George


Benton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
George, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Blair, Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blunkett, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boateng, Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Boyce, Jimmy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cann, Jamie
Harvey, Nick


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Coffey, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jamieson, David


Dafis, Cynog
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dixon, Don
Jowell, Tessa





Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan
Prescott, John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Randall, Stuart


Kirkwood, Archy
Raynsford, Nick


Leighton, Ron
Redmond, Martin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Rendel, David


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Salmond, Alex


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shearman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettteston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Stevenson, George


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Straw, Jack


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Tyler, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wallace, James


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew


Murphy, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Audrey


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Pope, Greg
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. John Thompson and


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after five hours after the commencement of the adjourned proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, designated Lords amendments Nos. 296, 324, 379, 414 to 416 and 423 as appearing to her to involve questions of privilege.

Madam Speaker: then put forthwith the Questions on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords amendment and the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in an amendment, as amended.

Schedule 10

PENSIONS

Lords amendment: No. 416, in page 170, line 51, at end insert—

("(1B) After the section 52A inserted by sub-paragraph (1A) above, there shall be inserted—

("(1B) After the section 52A inserted by sub-paragraph (1A) above, there shall be inserted—

"Power to substitute obligations under this section for liabilities under s.52(1).

52B.—(1) The Minister may make a substitution order in relation to any occupational pension scheme—

(a) which is a new scheme, within the meaning of Schedule 10 to the Railways Act 1993;
(b) which is designated under paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule (designation of schemes which are to be treated as B.R. pension schemes for certain purposes of this Part); and
(c) in relation to which a guarantee has been given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9A of that Schedule;

and any reference in this section to a "guaranteed pension scheme" is a reference to such an occupational pension scheme.

(2) The Minister may also make a substitution order in relation to any section of a new scheme, within the meaning of Schedule 10 to the Railways Act 1993, if the section is one—

(a) which is designated under paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule; and
(b) in relation to which a guarantee has been given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9A of that Schedule;

and the following provisions of this section (and sections 52C and 52D) shall apply in relation to any such section of a new scheme as if any reference to a guaranteed pension scheme included a reference to such a section.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a "substitution order" is an order under this section the effect of which is—

(a) to terminate, from the termination date, the Minister's liability to make to the persons administering the guaranteed pension scheme in question payments under section 52(1) in relation to the scheme; and
(b) to impose on the Minister, in substitution for that liability, an obligation to make to those persons, subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this section, one or more other payments (the "substitution payments") in relation to that scheme.

(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amount of the substitution payments to be made in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme shall be equal in the aggregate to the sum of—

(a) the amount specified pursuant to subsection (5)(a) as the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the scheme; and
(b) the aggregate amount of any interest which is dealt with as mentioned in subsection (8)(b)(ii) in the case of the scheme.

(5) A substitution order must specify—

(a) the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the guaranteed pension scheme in question, as at the termination date; and
(b) the date which, for the purposes of this section, is to be the termination date in relation to that scheme, being a date not earlier than one month after the coming into force of the substitution order.

(6) Any determination for the purposes of this section of the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme shall either—

(a) be made by the Minister; or

(b) if the Minister so requires in the particular case, be made by the actuary to the guaranteed pension scheme in question and approved by the Minister.

(7) A substitution order may specify—

(a) the amount or amounts, or the method of determining the amount or amounts, of the substitution payments,
(b) the date or dates on which the substitution payments are to be made,
(c) circumstances (which may, if the Minister so desires, be defined by reference to the opinion of any person) in which substitution payments are to be made,

and may provide for the obligation to make substitution payments to be discharged if the guaranteed pension scheme in question has, in the opinion of a person specified or described in, or nominated under, the order, been wound up.

(8) A substitution order must provide—

(a) for interest to accrue from the termination date on the outstanding balance of the capital value for the time being at such rate, and at such intervals, as may be specified in, or determined under or in accordance with, the order; and
(b) for any such interest which accrues—

(i) to be paid to the persons administering the guaranteed pension scheme in question, or
(ii) to be added to the outstanding balance of the capital value,

(or to be dealt with partly in one of those ways and partly in the other);

and the provision that may be made by virtue of paragraph (a) includes provision for the rate of interest to be calculated by reference to any variable or to be such rate as the Minister may from time to time determine and specify in a notice to the persons administering the scheme in question.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), the "outstanding balance of the capital value", in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, means the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the scheme, as specified pursuant to subsection (5)(a), —

(a) reduced by the amount of any substitution payments made in relation to that scheme; and
(b) increased by any additions of accrued interest under or by virtue of subsection (8)(b)(ii) in relation to that scheme.

(10) Nothing in this section affects the liability of the Board in respect of any relevant pension obligations.

(11) Any sums required for the making of payments under this section by the Minister shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

(12) In this section—

"the capital value of the unfunded obligations", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means such amount as is, in the opinion of the person determining that capital value pursuant to subsection (6), the capital equivalent of the payments that would, apart from this section, have been expected to be made by the Minister under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme after the termination date in the case of that scheme;
"occupational pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme as defined in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;
"the terminal period", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means—

(a) if a financial year of the scheme ends with the termination date, that financial year; or
(b) in any other case, so much of the financial year of the scheme in which the termination date falls as ends with that date;

"the termination date", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (5)(b);
"the termination year", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means the financial year of the scheme which consists of or includes the terminal period;


"trustees", in relation to a guaranteed pension scheme, includes a reference to any persons who, under the rules of the scheme, are under a liability to provide pensions or other benefits but who are not trustees of the scheme.

Adjustments arising in connection with orders under s.52B.

52C.—(1) As soon as practicable after the termination date in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, there shall be determined, for the terminal period, what proportion of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under, or incurred in connection with, the scheme corresponds to the relevant pension obligations.

(2) Any determination under subsection (1) shall either—

(a) be made by the Minister; or
(b) if the Minister so requires in the particular case, be made by the actuary or auditor to the guaranteed pension scheme in question and approved by the Minister.

(3) The Minister may give a direction to the persons administering a guaranteed pension scheme requiring them to determine the aggregate amount of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with the scheme for the terminal period or the termination year and to notify him in writing of their determination.

(4) As respects the termination year of a guaranteed pension scheme, the extent of the liability of the Minister to make payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme shall be restricted to a liability to make payments of an amount (the "termination year amount") equal in the aggregate to the product of—

(a) the proportion determined under section 54(1) for that scheme;
(b) the proportion determined pursuant to subsection (1) in the case of that scheme; and
(c) the aggregate amount of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with that scheme in the terminal period;

and payments by way of adjustment shall be made by the Minister to the persons administering the scheme, or (as the case may be) by those persons to the Minister, before the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the date of the last of the determinations made under subsection (1) or (3) with respect to the scheme.

(5) Where, in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, the funding of the relevant pension obligations has, by virtue of subsection (3) of section 54, been left out of account in making a determination under subsection (1) of that section, the termination year amount in the case of that scheme shall be the difference between—

(a) what that amount would have been, apart from this subsection; and
(b) the amount of any income accruing for the terminal period which may be applied towards the payment of such of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with the scheme as correspond to those obligations.

(6) The Minister may give a direction to the persons administering a guaranteed pension scheme requiring them to determine the amount mentioned in subsection (5)(b) and to notify him in writing of their determination.

(7) Where payments by way of adjustment fall to be made, interest shall be payable, as from the termination date, by the person liable to make those payments, at the rates and intervals from time to time applicable for the purposes of section 52B(8)(a) in the case of the scheme in question, on so much of the aggregate amount of the payments in question as for the time being remains unpaid.

(8) So much of—

(a) any payment by way of adjustment which falls to be made, or
(b) any interest accrued under subsection (7),

as has not been paid shall be treated as a debt due.

(9) Any sums required for the making of payments under this section by the Minister shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

(10) In this section, "payments by way of adjustment", in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, means—

(a) if the Minister has made payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year which, in the aggregate, exceed the termination year amount, payment to the Minister by the persons administering the scheme of an amount equal to the excess;
(b) if the Minister has made no payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year, payment by the Minister to those persons of the termination year amount; or
(c) if the Minister has made payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year which, in the aggregate, fall short of the termination year amount, payment by the Minister to those persons of an amount equal to the shortfall.

(11) Expressions used in this section and in section 52B have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section. Orders and directions under sections 52A to 52C: supplemental.

52D.—(1) Any power to make an order under section 52B shall be exercisable by statutory instrument made by the Minister after consultation with the trustees of the guaranteed pension scheme to which the order relates.

(2) The Minister shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the order to be made.

(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) At the time when a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B is laid before each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (3), the Minister shall, if he has not already done so, also lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the guarantee mentioned in subsection (1)(c) of that section; but this subsection is without prejudice to the validity of the order in question.

(5) Any power to make an order under section 52B includes power, exercisable in the same manner, to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as may appear necessary or expedient to the Minister.

(6) Any order under section 52B may make different provision for different cases or for different classes or descriptions of case.

(7) It shall be the duty of any person to whom a direction is given under section 52A or 52C to comply with and give effect to that direction; and compliance with any such direction shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Minister for an injunction or interdict or for any other appropriate relief.

(8) Any power to give a direction under section 52A or 52C includes power to vary or revoke the direction.

(9) Any direction under section 52A or 52C shall be given in writing.

(10) In this section—

"guaranteed pension scheme" has the same meaning as in section 52B;
"trustees", in relation to a guaranteed pension scheme, has the same meaning as in section 52B."")

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment:(a), to leave out lines 254 to 258.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 132.

Division No. 384]
[12.13 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Amess, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Ancram, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)






Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman





Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Legg, Barry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sackville, Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lidington, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luff, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Mans, Keith
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Streeter, Gary


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sweeney, Walter


Merchant, Piers
Sykes, John


Milligan, Stephen
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thomason, Roy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Needham, Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trend, Michael


Norris, Steve
Trotter, Neville


O'Neill, Martin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Paice, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Whittingdale, John


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Richards, Rod
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Robathan, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry


Alton, David
Bayley, Hugh


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.






Bennett, Andrew F.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bermingham, Gerald
McAllion, John


Betts, Clive
McAvoy, Thomas


Boyce, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Bradley, Keith
McFall, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McKelvey, William


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McMaster, Gordon


Cann, Jamie
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Madden, Max


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Clelland, David
Marek, Dr John


Coffey, Ann
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Connarty, Michael
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Martlew, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Maxton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meacher, Michael


Corston, Ms Jean
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michael, Alun


Cummings, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Miller, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Morley, Elliot


Dafis, Cynog
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Davidson, Ian
O'Hara, Edward


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Olner, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Denham, John
Parry, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Don
Pickthall, Colin


Donohoe, Brian H.
Pike, Peter L.


Enright, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Etherington, Bill
Prescott, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Purchase, Ken


Foster, Don (Bath)
Raynsford, Nick


Foulkes, George
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rendel, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Gordon, Mildred
Rooker, Jeff


Graham, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Gunnell, John
Short, Clare


Hain, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Hall, Mike
Snape, Peter


Hanson, David
Spearing, Nigel


Harvey, Nick
Spellar, John


Heppell, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hoey, Kate
Turner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Tyler, Paul


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wallace, James


Hoyle, Doug
Walley, Joan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wareing, Robert N


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Watson, Mike


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Wilson, Brian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Winnick, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Wise, Audrey


Khabra, Piara S.
Wray, Jimmy


Kilfoyle, Peter



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 111.

Division No. 385]
[12.25 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)





Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luff, Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan


Milligan, Stephen
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Sykes, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Pickles, Eric
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wolfson, Mark


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Shaw, David (Dover)



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Boyce, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bayley, Hugh
Cann, Jamie


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berts, Clive
Clelland, David





Coffey, Ann
McKelvey, William


Connarty, Michael
Mackinlay, Andrew


Corbett, Robin
Maclennan, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
McMaster, Gordon


Cox, Tom
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Cummings, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dafis, Cynog
Martlew, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Michael, Alun


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Miller, Andrew


Denham, John
Morley, Elliot


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Dixon, Don
Olner, William


Donohoe, Brian H.
Parry, Robert


Etherington, Bill
Pickthall, Colin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Purchase, Ken


Golding, Mrs Llin
Reid, Dr John


Gordon, Mildred
Rendel, David


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Grocott, Bruce
Short, Clare


Gunnell, John
Simpson, Alan


Hall, Mike
Skinner, Dennis


Hanson, David
Snape, Peter


Harvey, Nick
Spearing, Nigel


Henderson, Doug
Spellar, John


Heppell, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hoey, Kate
Turner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Tyler, Paul


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Walley, Joan


Hoyle, Doug
Wareing, Robert N


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Watson, Mike


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wilson, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Livingstone, Ken
Wray, Jimmy


Lynne, Ms Liz



McAllion, John
Tellers for the Noes:


McAvoy, Thomas
Dr. John Marek and


Macdonald, Calum
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


McFall, John

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 423, in page 173, line 26, at end insert—
("Government guarantees to trustees of certain new schemes

9A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary of State—

(a) shall give to the trustees of any new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) below, and
(b) may give to the trustees of any new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) below,

a guarantee in respect of their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme.

(2)This paragraph applies in relation to a section of a new scheme as it applies in relation to a new scheme; and any reference in this paragraph to a new scheme, a closed scheme, a pension scheme or a member shall be construed accordingly.

(3)A new scheme satisfies the conditions in this sub-paragraph if—

(a) all the members of the scheme are persons whose pension rights under the scheme are pension rights which have been transferred, so as to become pension rights under that scheme, pursuant to an order under paragraph 4 above; and
(b) the rules of the scheme prevent any member of the scheme from being a participant in the scheme.

(4) A new scheme satisfies the conditions in this sub-paragraph if—

(a) the scheme is a closed scheme; and
(b) at the date on which the scheme becomes a closed scheme, all the members of the scheme are—

(i) participants in the scheme to whom pension rights under the scheme are accruing by virtue of their employment with a relevant employer; or
(ii) pensioners or deferred pensioners under the scheme whose pension rights under the scheme derive in whole or in part from their, or some other person's, participation in an occupational pension scheme as an employee of a relevant employer.

(5) Classes or descriptions of person may be prescribed whose membership of, or participation in, a new scheme is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the new scheme satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) or (4) above.

(6) The power to give a guarantee under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above becomes exercisable in the case of any new scheme if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is desirable to give such a guarantee for the purpose of ensuring that the trustees of the scheme are, or will be, able to meet their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme as those liabilities fall to be met.

(7) The Secretary of State shall consider any representations made by the trustees of a new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) above concerning their ability to meet their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme.

(8) Any guarantee under this paragraph shall be given in such manner, and on such terms and conditions, as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this sub-paragraph, the terms and conditions on which a guarantee under this paragraph may be given include terms and conditions—

(a) with respect to any matter relating to payment under the guarantee, including—

(i) the circumstances in which payment under the guarantee falls to be made;
(ii) the amounts, or the method of determining the amounts, of any payments that fall to be so made;
(iii) the persons to whom any such payments are to be made;

(b) with respect to any matter relating to the management, affairs or winding up of the scheme, including—

(i) the policy to be followed in relation to the investment of assets held for the purposes of the scheme; and
(ii) the distribution of any surplus which may arise under the scheme; or

(c) requiring or precluding, or otherwise with respect to, amendment of the rules of the scheme;

and the sub-paragraphs of paragraphs (a) and (b) above are without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of the paragraph in question.

(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State to fulfil a guarantee given under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

(10) In this paragraph—

"closed scheme" means a pension scheme—

(a) to which no new members are to be admitted; but
(b) under which pensions and other benefits continue to be provided;

"deferred pensioner", in the case of any pension scheme, means a person who has pension rights under the scheme but who (so far as relating to those pension rights) is neither a participant in the scheme nor a pensioner under the scheme;
"relevant employer" means—

(a) the Board;
(b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or
(c) a publicly owned railway company, other than a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.")

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 49, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'may, after consultation with the trustees of, and the actuary to, the scheme in question, think'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 100.

Division No. 386]
[12.40 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dicks, Terry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evennett, David


Bates, Michael
Faber, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fabricant, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, Dudley


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallie, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gardiner, Sir George


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bright, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gillan, Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorst, John


Burl, Alistair
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carttiss, Michael
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)






Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Pickles, Eric


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stephen, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Pattle, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggln, Sir Jerry





Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Michael Brown.


Yeo, Tim



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Allen, Graham
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Alton, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bayley, Hugh
McAllion, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
McAvoy, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F.
Macdonald, Calum


Betts, Clive
McFall, John


Boyce, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Bradley, Keith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
McWilliam, John


Cann, Jamie
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marek, Dr John


Coffey, Ann
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Connarty, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Corbett, Robin
Martlew, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michael, Alun


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cummings, John
Miller, Andrew


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morley, Elliot


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Dafis, Cynog
Olner, William


Davidson, Ian
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Pickthall, Colin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Pike, Peter L.


Denham, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dewar, Donald
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Purchase, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H.
Reid, Dr John


Etherington, Bill
Rendel, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spellar, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steinberg, Gerry


Graham, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Grocott, Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Gunnell, John
Tyler, Paul


Hall, Mike
Wareing, Robert N


Hanson, David
Welsh, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Wigley, Dafydd


Heppell, John
Winnick, David


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wise, Audrey


Home Robertson, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hoyle, Doug



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Alan Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 86.

Division No. 387]
[12.53 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ancram, Michael
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beggs, Roy


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian


Atkins, Robert
Beresford, Sir Paul






Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Booth, Hartley
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hanley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Hannam, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Harris, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hendry, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clappison, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Michael


Congdon, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Conway, Derek
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cran, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, Sir David


Dorrell, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan, Alan
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lidington, David


Elletson, Harold
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Madel, David


Forman, Nigel
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marland, Paul


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gallie, Phil
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Milligan, Stephen


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glllan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)





Moate, Sir Roger
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stephen, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sweeney, Walter


Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thomason, Roy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pickles, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Trotter, Neville


Robathan, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Ward, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sackville, Tom
Watts, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whittingdale, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Willetts, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilshire, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Sir Derek
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Robert Hughes and


Spring, Richard
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Sproat, Iain



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Donohoe, Brian H.


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Alton, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bayley, Hugh
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Betts, Clive
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cummings, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McAllion, John


Denham, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John






McKelvey, William
Reid, Dr John


Macklnlay, Andrew
Rendel, David


McMaster, Gordon
Simpson, Alan


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


Olner, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Parry, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Andrew Bennett and


Purchase, Ken
Dr. John Marek.

Question accordingly agreed to.[special Entry.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments involving privilege;—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 82.

Division No. 388]
[1.06 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Congdon, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Ashby, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamfoid)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elletson, Harold


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evennett, David


Bowden, Andrew
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Budgen, Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butler, Peter
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sydney
Gillan, Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Coe, Sebastian
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealling N)





Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Norris, Steve


Grylls, Sir Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hague, William
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Paice, James


Hannam, Sir John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawkins, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Hawksley, Warren
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayes, Jerry
Powell, William (Corby)


Heald, Oliver
Rathbone, Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hendry, Charles
Richards, Rod


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Riddick, Graham


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Robathan, Andrew


Horam, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robinson, Marts (Somerton)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Sackville, Tom


Jack, Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sims, Roger


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Soames, Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knox, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sproat, Iain


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Legg, Barry
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Stephen, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stern, Michael


Lidington, David
Stewart, Allan


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sweeney, Walter


Lord, Michael
Sykes, John


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Madel, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malone, Gerald
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Marland, Paul
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Milligan, Stephen
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Ward, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Needham, Richard
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann






Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Andrew Mackay.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Kilfoyle, Peter


Allen, Graham
Lewis, Terry


Alton, David
McAllion, John


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Bayley, Hugh
Macdonald, Calum


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
McFall, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
McKelvey, William


Bermingham, Gerald
Mackinlay, Andrew


Betts, Clive
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McWilliam, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Cann, Jamie
Marek, Dr John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clelland, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Coffey, Ann
Martlew, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Meale, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Michael, Alun


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cox, Tom
Miller, Andrew


Cummings, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Olner, William


Davidson, Ian
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Pickthall, Colin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Prescott, John


Etherington, Bill
Purchase, Ken


Foster, Don (Bath)
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rendel, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Simpson, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Grocott, Bruce
Spellar, John


Gunnell, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hall, Mike
Turner, Dennis


Harvey, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Henderson, Doug
Wareing, Robert N


Heppell, John
Winnick, David


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wise, Audrey


Home Robertson, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments [Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified to amendment No.309]:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 77.

Division No. 389]
[1.19 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowden, Andrew


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baldry, Tony
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bates, Michael
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Beggs, Roy
Butler, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)





Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Congdon, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Day, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Legg, Barry


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dover, Den
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lightbown, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Luff, Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Elletson, Harold
Maclean, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribbla Valley)
Madel, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evennett, David
Malone, Gerald


Faber, David
Mans, Keith


Fabricant, Michael
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marlow, Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Milligan, Stephen


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mills, Iain


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Sir Roger


Gallie, Phil
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, Sir George
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Nelson, Anthony


Garnier, Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gorst, John
Norris, Steve


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ottaway, Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Page, Richard


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Pawsey, James


Hannam, Sir John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawkins, Nick
Rathbone, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Richards, Rod


Hayes, Jerry
Riddick, Graham


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hendry, Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Horam, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howarth, Alan (Stratrd-on-A)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela






Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trend, Michael


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Thomason, Roy



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Lewis, Terry


Allen, Graham
McAllion, John


Alton, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry
Macdonald, Calum


Bayley, Hugh
McFall, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
McKelvey, William


Bennett, Andrew F.
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
McMaster, Gordon


Betts, Clive
McWilliam, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cann, Jamie
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Martlew, Eric


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Coffey, Ann
Michael, Alun


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Miller, Andrew


Cox, Tom
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Cryer, Bob
Olner, William


Cummings, John
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pickthall, Colin


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Pike, Peter L.


Davidson, Ian
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Purchase, Ken


Etherington, Bill
Rendel, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Simpson, Alan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Thomas
Spellar, John


Grocott, Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Hall, Mike
Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Henderson, Doug
Winnick, David


Heppell, John
Wise, Audrey


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wray, Jimmy


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Dr. Norman A. Godman and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Michael Connarty.


Kilfoyle, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,

That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments: Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Roger Freeman, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Prescott; that three be the quorum; that the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

put forthwith pursuant to the Order [2 November]:—

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 75.

Division No. 390
[1.31


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan, Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ashby, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fry, Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael






Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Richards, Rod


Kilfedder, Sir James
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robathan, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Legg, Barry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sackville, Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lidington, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stephen, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Streeter, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Monro, Sir Hector
Sykes, John


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M, (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thomason, Roy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tredinnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian





Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Widdecombe, Ann


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Willetts, David


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Andrew Mackay and


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Allen, Graham
Kilfoyle, Peter


Alton, David
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
McAllion, John


Bayley, Hugh
McAvoy, Thomas


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Macdonald, Calum


Bennett, Andrew F.
McFall, John


Bermingham, Gerald
McKelvey, William


Betts, Clive
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cann, Jamie
Martlew, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Coffey, Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Connarty, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Corbett, Robin
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Olner, William


Cox, Tom
O'Neill, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Pickthall, Colin


Cummings, John
Pike, Peter L.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Ian
Purchase, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Rendel, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Simpson, Alan


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Don (Bath)
Spellar, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Tyler, Paul


Graham, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N


Grocott, Bruce
Winnick, David


Hall, Mike
Wise, Audrey


Heppell, John
Wray, Jimmy


Hill, Keith (Streatham)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. Bill Etherington and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Dr. John Marek.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Pitsea Post Office, Basildon

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Mr. David Amess: On the face of it, my debate would appear to be a straightforward Adjournment debate in which I could complain about the closure of Pitsea post office and its transfer to a Tesco superstore, but it is not—it is Basildon's Watergate. I was greatly looking forward to the summer recess, which was to provide me with an opportunity to spend more time with my wife and family. I had no idea of the political furore there was to be throughout the months of August and September. In the time that we have to debate the matter, I shall be revealing correspondence that I have had with the Post Office and Tesco of a most unsatisfactory nature.
Most Members of Parliament are conscientious about their duties and they want to know what is going on in the area that they represent. One can imagine my outrage when I first learned from an article in a newspaper that Pitsea Crown post office was to close. I had had no notification from Post Office Counters Ltd., and I raised the matter first on the occasion of the summer Adjournment debate.
I referred to Basildon's Watergate. When the chairman of Post Office Counters Ltd. and his staff came to see me in my office in the House of Commons, he brought to my notice a letter which purported to have come from me supporting the closure of Pitsea post office. It was clear that the signature on the letter was not mine and never on any occasion had I authorised the letter sanctioning any enthusiasm for the closure of Pitsea post office.
To get to the heart of the matter, however, I have no quarrel with the Government. I support all current Post Office initiatives whereby different retail outlets for post offices have been selected. But in my constituency I am always mindful of the overall trading position. Far too many people are coming to the town of Basildon, which I represent, and opening an ever-increasing number of larger stores. At this moment, the constituency is over-trading —I have no doubt about that. By 1 January, I will be the only Member of Parliament to have three Tesco superstores. Tesco thought that I would welcome it having its first post office in its store in my constituency.
The three-week consultation period was an absolute fiasco. The Conservative-controlled district council, the Conservative Member of Parliament when he learned about the closure, my constituents at public meetings and the excellent chairman of Post Office consultative committee all opposed the closure of Pitsea post office. But as events revealed, the Post Office had made up its mind. It clearly was working closely with Tesco from the outset. The change would not have inconvenienced a great many of my constituents, but I was concerned about the senior citizens in my constituency and it was to them that I listened. They saw the post office as a social place at which to meet and chat with the excellent people serving behind the counter.
The crazy thing is that the Tesco superstore is a quarter of a mile away from Pitsea post office. The senior citizens, some of whom are disabled and find great difficulty in getting about, did not want to travel the extra quarter of a mile to the Tesco superstore. Those are the people to whom I was listening. At the old site of the post office is a Sainsbury store. However, at this moment Sainsbury does

not want post offices in its stores. It was not interested in the measure. At no point during the three-week consultation period did anyone from the Post Office come forward, meet my constituents' objections and say that they would, at the very least, consider one of the newsagents within the precinct having a post office facility.
After the meeting in my office at which the chairman of Post Office Counters mentioned my letter, the chairman understood perfectly well that I had no intention of authorising the letter, and that was the last we ever heard of it.
Unfortunately, on the day on which the Post Office announced that it was minded to go ahead with transferring to Tesco superstores, all the main protagonists bar me were unavailable. They were either on holiday or just not available. So I, the person who had opposed the proposal and supported my constituents from the start, was left to face the flack. I was so angry that I got in my car and drove to see the chairman of the Post Office at 148 Old street. Of course, he was not there. There was no one in a senior position to see me.
I also tried to make contact with Tesco. Again, there was no one available to see me. The chairman of Tesco wrote a letter to me on 9 August, in which he said:
I acknowledge your letter of the 3rd August and I have spoken this morning to my colleague David Wild who I know has been in contact with you personally, and also your office. Mr. Wild informs me that he will be in further discussions with you this week, and I sincerely hope that we can resolve this situation to our mutual benefit.
All along, Tesco understood that I wanted to meet its representatives before the decision was announced. The decision was announced on the Monday and was leaked to the media the Friday before. That was a great discourtesy to my constituents. The supposed meeting with Tesco was on the following Thursday. So to date there has been no meeting between myself and Tesco.
On the day of the announcement that Post Office Counters intended to go ahead with moving Pitsea post office to Tesco superstores, my letter was mysteriously leaked to the media. It found its way on to television and was on the front page of my evening paper. That action was unforgivable.
The chairman of the Post Office said:
Having returned from leave I was somewhat horrified to read of the developments that have taken place over the last few weeks in relation to the Pitsea Post Office situation. I have satisfied myself that the consultation process has been followed carefully and that the final decision is the correct one … It has been clear to us for some weeks that you passionately oppose the move of the Pitsea Post Office to the Tesco site and you have done your very best to influence the course of events.
We have tried to discover how a copy of the letter came into the hands of the Press and we have failed. Certainly it did not come from any person in authority in the Post Office but further than that we cannot say. However I feel strongly that the decision to subsequently make the letter available to the TV station, whether under pressure or not, was unprofessional, very unhelpful and I unreservedly apologise that this should have happened.
Fine. I accept the apology of the chairman of the Post Office. However, a lot of damage was done to me locally by the leak. It is not good enough for the Post Office to say that it cannot find out who the person or individuals are who leaked the letter.
So I wrote again, asking the chairman of the Post Office if he had any success in finding out who had leaked the letter. It could clearly be sorted out by a conversation between the editor of the Evening Echo and the chairman


of the Post Office. After all, the editor of the Evening Echo knows the source of the leaked letter. But that has never happened.
I am further annoyed by the last letter that I received from the chairman of the Post Office. As the consultation period developed, I asked a number of questions. Where was the support for the closure of Pitsea post office and its removal to the Tesco superstore? I wanted to know how many letters, what were the organisations supporting the move and what surveys had been conducted. I have had no answer on any of those points. All along, I was concerned that the requirements of the senior citizens who did not want to collect their pensions from the new post office were satisfied.
The chairman of the Post Office told me in his last letter that only six people have decided not to transfer their pensions. I have been in contact with the Department of Social Security, which told me that 24 people decided to change their method of collection, and will be getting their pensions from Rectory road in Pitsea, but more than 600 people in the constituency are collecting their pensions through the banks and direct debit. I make no criticism of that, but all along the contention from the Post Office was that the change would make no difference.
It is appalling that those senior citizens who enjoyed going to the Pitsea post office and talking to the counter assistants, who helped with all their queries, have been completely forgotten. All that I get from Tesco is the ridiculous argument that it finds that, whenever it takes over a post office, there is always an outcry, petitions are signed, all sorts of people oppose the move, but after a few weeks things settle down and people have no objections, and that it has asked its customers about the move.
What a silly proposition that is. Of course the customers of Tesco will be delighted to have a post office facility so that they can get their car tax disk and purchase their stamps and television licences. That was never the argument. If one asks a silly question, one gets a silly answer. Of course they will say that they are happy. I am concerned about the people who do not go there. How will their reaction be monitored? It seems as though they have been forgotten, and nobody could care less: we had a bit of a row, now we have got our way, and they are forgotten.
I am not going to forget those people and the way that the consultation was held. As was known full well, the House was about to adjourn for the summer recess and I would not have an opportunity, such as I am delighted to have this morning, to debate the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for such matters. The way the consultation was carried out meant that the decision was a fair accompli from the start.
Will my hon. Friend reflect on my points? I draw to his attention my feeling that it was cruel for the Post Office to go ahead with the proposal without allowing my senior citizens an opportunity to continue to collect their pensions from their local post office. Although many of us would say that it is best to collect them direct from a bank or savings deposit, that is not what they want. It was also greedy to give it all to one outlet.
It would not have taken much to have come to an arrangement. I understand that Martin The Newsagent in

Pitsea centre would have been happy to have a post office there. That is the least that the post office should have done —and it should do so now.
It is rumoured that Laindon post office may transfer to the third Tesco superstore, which is to open in Basildon on 1 January. We are told in one breath that we cannot have a post office within less than a mile; yet the post office in the Tesco superstore is less than a mile away from a post office in Vange. If it moved from its present site, it would be about two and half miles away, so will my hon. Friend the Minister look into that matter, too?
What was appalling about Tesco's behaviour was that it kept stonewalling and saying that it was a matter for the post office. That was nonsense; Tesco wanted the business. The very next week, Tesco's manager had the nerve to write to me about Sunday trading and said that I should listen to my constituents on that matter. I have it on good authority that my reply was stuck on the notice board. That is unprofessional. If a manager intends to put a Member of Parliament's letter on the notice board, he should give due warning.
I am not prepared to forget the conduct of the post office and Tesco over that matter, nor the importance of the post office within that shopping centre. I shall not simply put up my hand and support all big stores. As a Conservative, I am worried about the viability of small and medium-sized traders, whom we should not abandon. Neither am I prepared to forget the senior citizens who did not wish to transfer their pensions to Tesco superstore.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on Basildon's Watergate—this whole unhappy, unsatisfactory dialogue between myself and the post office—and I hope that he will ensure, through his good endeavours, that it never happens to any hon. Member again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is renowned as a champion for the rights of his constituents and ensuring that they get a full hearing both through his representations to various people and in the House.
The future of Pitsea post office has generated much interest and concern among my hon. Friend's constituents. However, it is important that we consider it in a wider context.
I fully recognise and share my hon. Friend's concern about the leaking of a letter to the local newspaper. As he said, he has received a reply from the chairman of the post office, who has expressed his regret that that should have occurred and his unreserved apologies for the aggravation caused. The post office has investigated thoroughly how the letter came into the media's hands, but has been unable to reach a sound conclusion. If it could be proved that a post office employee had been responsible for such an unauthorised action, it would be regarded as serious professional misconduct and acted on accordingly.
My hon. Friend mentioned Tesco and Sunday trading. He will forgive me if I do not go down that avenue, as I am led to believe that the House will have an opportunity to discuss that matter later.
Post Office Counters Ltd. operates Europe's largest retail network, serving some 28 million customers each week through almost 20,000 outlets. Currently, those comprise 881 main or Crown post offices and some 19,000


agency offices, ranging from large franchise offices in supermarkets, open for six full days a week, to community offices in rural areas that are open for just a few hours a week.
The sheer size and diversity of the Post Office network means that decisions about the location and organisation of individual post offices must be an operational matter for the Post Office management and not for the Government. The Government have, of course, an interest in the broad framework of the provision of post offices, in line with our clear manifesto commitment to maintain a nationwide network of post offices. However, if that network is to continue to be viable, it is essential that the Post Office Counters business is run as effectively as possible and in the interests of all its consumers.
It is in that context that Post Office Counters' programme to convert Crown post offices to agency offices must be considered. Within the nationwide network, a large number of rural post offices are run at a loss to Post Office Counters Ltd. To continue to maintain those offices as well as to fund extensive modernisation and customer service improvements, the Post Office must find ways of increasing the efficiency of its operators.
As a commercial concern with nation-wide responsibilities, the Post Office is not, and cannot be, immune to a wide range of economic changes and pressures. Its decisions must be taken against the key objectives of service and cost. Conversion of Crown offices to agency-operated outlets provides an opportunity significantly to reduce the cost of running an individual office through, for example, shared overheads. Frequently, it also means that the accommodation and facilities can be upgrade and longer opening hours can be provided on a cost-efficient basis.
Under the Crown con version programme, since 1988 more than 600 Crown post offices have been converted to agency offices, and 90 of those conversions have been to franchise offices in partnership with supermarket chains and other retailers. In every case, the agency office has continued to offer the full range of services which had been provided at the Crown offices that it replaced. There has been no downgrading of the service, and agency office staff are fully trained by Post Office Counters to the same standard as its own staff.
In view of the cost savings that the conversion of Crown post offices to agency status is delivering, Post Office Counters plans to continue with the programme as suitable opportunities arise. Where such an opportunity is identified, the Post Office will always consult publicly on individual proposals in accordance with a code of practice agreed with the Post Office Users National Council.
The code provides that whenever plans to convert a Crown office to an agency operation are being formulated, the district manager advises the local Member of Parliament and a range of representative bodies of the proposals. At local level, these include the district council, the county or regional council, the parish and rural community council, and where appropriate, the local Post Office advisory committee and the local chamber of commerce.
The Post Office Users National Council is also advised, but, rightly, the emphasis is on seeking local views and comments within a stipulated period. The period is generally one month, but understand that it is frequently extended by a further week or two when extra time is needed to obtain and submit local comments.
It has to be recognised, however, that the Post Office looks to the public consultation process to identify any special local circumstances which may have been overlooked in formulating its conversion proposal. If this is the case, plans are modified accordingly. However, it is not putting its proposal to a local vote, as is sometimes presumed. In general, in the Post Office's experience, there tends to be a natural and understandable opposition to any change in what is widely regarded as a traditional institution.
There is a curiously common pattern with these conversions. Proposals which are initially seen as unwelcome and detrimental to service levels and convenience are, once the change has been made, quickly seen to have positive benefits. Independent research has been undertaken into customer reaction to 21 conversions that have taken place in the past two years. That research is conducted on seven criteria—convenience, accessibility, waiting time, speed of handling transactions, staff attitude, staff welcome and convenience of opening hours. For the first six of those criteria, the research showed that for each customer who considers that service has deteriorated, five consider that it has improved and a further five perceive no change.
On opening hours, 67 per cent. of the customers questioned consider them to be better than before, 32 per cent. consider them to be about the same and a mere 1 per cent. consider them worse. That is a consistent pattern which provides a convincing endorsement of the conversion programme and the high levels of service provided by our franchise post offices.
My hon. Friend has forcefully made his views clear about the consultation process in the case of the Pitsea post office. His view results largely from widespread misinterpretation of the essential nature of the consultation process. As I said earlier, it is not intended to be a popular vote, but a means of identifying any factors and concerns which the Post Office has not fully appreciated in drawing up its plans.
In the case of Pitsea, I understand that specific concerns raised during the consultation process relating to better lighting, clearance of overgrown shrubbery on the pathway approach and the provision of more disabled parking spaces have been jointly addresssed by the Post Office and Tesco in the final arrangements for the franchise operation with the opening of the new facility on 11 October. Post office services are now offered for 79 hours a week, compared with 46 hours a week under previous arrangements—a facility which I hope will provide an increased service to a number of my hon. Friend's constituents.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the case of Laindon Crown post office. He has reported to me the speculation about the future of this post office in wake of the changes at Pitsea. Post Office Counters has confirmed that, contrary to reports of a relocation to a new Tesco store at Dunton, the post office facility in Laindon will remain on the present site for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, I repeat that the decision to convert individual Crown post offices to agency status are the operational responsibility of Post Office Counters. The Government, however, fully support the Crown conversion programme for the important contribution that it makes towards reducing the business overheads in the interests of taxpayers and the Post Office's clients and customers.
Franchise offices and sub-post offices are generally more efficient than the directly run Crown post offices, but the financial benefits are not being achieved at the expense of quality to the public. Service provisions and standards remain the same or better and, after some initial reluctance of customers to face the change, within a short period the new arrangements are almost universally accepted as providing a worthwhile and positive benefit. I see no reason why that should not be the case at Pitsea.
I believe that residents can confidently look forward to continuing provision of excellent post office facilities in the town. However, I would be wholly wrong to say to my hon. Friend that I do not recognise the serious strength of feeling that he has expressed here tonight in the Chamber and I will certainly draw it to the attention of both the chief executive and the chairman of the Post Office in the hope that my hon. Friend will receive a better response to any future dealings he may have on the matter than he has in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Two o'clock.